Underlying Philosophy

Really? Do you have any evidence to back up the idea that Christians are more moral than anyone else? Or more peaceful? Or have more knowledge?It seems to me that you are making a "No True Scotsman" argument, where non-Christians might have similar morality, peacefulness, and knowledge but that it isn't "true", whatever that means. Here is an interesting thought experiment: Can God order or do something that is unjust? Ignore for a moment what you think God *would* order or do, and instead just consider what is possible:What if God commanded that you kill and eat babies; not even your own babies, that you went and forcefully stole other babies and ate them?What about commanding a standard of behavior and when people follow it successfully, punishing their souls for eternity anyway?Now if you think that God doing such things would be just, then I have to wonder why you place your moral compass in God. In addition I must also point out that you would be a completely immoral person; the postulated god might have morals, but you are completely devoid of the capacity to recognize morality.If you don't think God doing such things is just, then evidently you don't place your moral compass in God. God then would only be measured against an independent standard of morality. Where did that standard come from? God cannot have provided it, or even revealed it to us, because this option already shows you would reject his revelation if it was skewed from what you already knew was moral. We cannot be certain that we are communicating with other people, in the same sense that we cannot be certain that the world around us is not completely an illusion (like "The Matrix"). The concept of illusion about the world can to some extent be reduced however, by determining what things are consistent between two people's potential illusions. This is sort of what we mean when we talk about Objective Reality, the things that are the same regardless of the mind's involvement.True objective reality implies that even with nobody around to hear it, a tree falling in the forest would still make a sound. This is backed up by later finding the effects of the tree falling to be consistent with it making a sound; perhaps we even recorded that sound. Verifying the truth of objectivity is of course impossible since actually observing the event would make it cease to be objective.It is reasonable to conclude that reality continues on the same if we observe it or not, rather than that unobserved happenings are consistently fabricated to appear as though it does.

Eusebius of Caesarea was made Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314, and was one of the more renowned Church Fathers. Christian doctrine states unequivocally that deception in the service of God is a regular and expected matter of course.

How exactly is telling untruths as though they were true not lying? It seems to me that telling falsehoods, even if as a mode of instruction, is lying. Especially when you are attempting to modify their behavior based on falsehoods. It isn't as though analogies or parables were an unknown concept at the time. CHURCH FATHERS: Home
Try scrolling down to the "E"s.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
Page Not Found - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
404: It seems the path has disappeared!
EarlyChurch.org.uk: Eusebius of Caesarea [AD 260/265 — 339/340]
Eusebius of Caesarea - OrthodoxWikiNow I certainly realize that each theist is a religion unto themselves, but I don't see how you can realistically claim that he isn't considered a Church Father. I believe that I just pointed out the advocacy of someone influential in the establishment of Christian doctrine. On the other hand perhaps a quote from a book instructing the clergy in their behavior would be warranted...For further example, John Chrysostom, who was also an important Early Church Father.

I am aware. The point was that Eusebius was advocating deception, not that he was the author of the quote. This makes no sense; the first statement does not follow from the second. This appears to be a failure of basic reasoning. This passage does not advocate (or condemn) that, but it does advocate deception in the service of God. I object to those shenanigans in the same sense that I would object to being stabbed by a theist; while a perfectly reasonable thing for a general to do to the enemy, it is not suitable behavior in advocating religious ideals.Those examples seem to indicate that John viewed Basil as an enemy, in order to justify his actions. If enmity is required to justify one's actions toward a friend or fellow, perhaps it is time to admit those actions are not friendly or civil. No, I would say that deception is only regular and accepted as a matter of course when dealing with mortal enemies, or those wished extreme ill. "Atheist doctrine" is also somewhat nonsensical, but I'll accept it in the spirit of the question.Edited by Phage0070, : Elaboration

OK, and? No, no it isn't in the slightest. Observe:The Christian god wouldn't even be included in many people's lists of existing gods, therefore nobody would put the Christian god at or near the top of existing gods.Does it make any more sense to you now? Are you sure you have been reading these quotes? Ok, granted. I would be fine with modifying my statement to say that deception is a tool used sparingly by the Christian church.

If you approvingly quote someone advocating deliberate falsehood, you are approving deliberate falsehood. Then perhaps you could point out the difference? They are both people's opinions on beings, fictional or not. If the Christian god not being on some people's lists at all does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists, then Eusebius not being on some people's lists of Church Fathers does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists.This is basic logic, the analogy is directly equivalent, and you really need to understand this concept. It is irrelevant whether he thought they were metaphors or straight lies, presenting metaphor as truth is a lie. If you present something you know is not literally true as being literally true, it is deception.You can debate the ethics on lying to put someone on the right track versus lying to lead them astray, but they are both lies.

And for the nth time, it is irrelevant what Plato intended. It is Eusebius I am talking about, and what Eusebius intended with the quote.His meaning in quoting Plato was to highlight the advantages of deception, unintentional or otherwise. Eusebius believed, as you claimed yourself, that the anthropomorphism of God in the Bible was not literally true and yet advocated its presentation as such. The critical distinction is that while Plato thought he was telling the truth, Eusebius did not. Then I believe I have adequately proved your heuristic to suck. Again, not true. Metaphors are presented as being metaphors; this is why if the metaphor is not known to both parties as such, misunderstandings will occur.For instance, someone who didn't know of the "busting my balls" metaphor might be rather horrified and offer to rush you to a hospital. Such misunderstandings are common for people new to a language.In this same sense you cannot come up with your own original metaphor and expect to be understood without first explaining the metaphor to your target audience. Deliberately presenting a metaphor to an unknowing audience with the intention of it being interpreted as literally true is deception. Those people singing the song presumably know it is a metaphor. Telling a child who doesn't know it is a metaphor that God holds the world in his hands, expecting the child to literally believe it, is a lie. That is what Eusebius was advocating.

I am indeed particularly unconvinced that was his intention with that passage. That it actually work in any field whatsoever? I have already already shown quotes from people who contradicted your conclusion. The heuristic boils down to a hasty generalization of *everyone*. Only because their audience already knows it is a metaphor. If they didn't then not prefacing it with an explanation is dishonesty. And similarly dishonest to support preaching Anthropomorphism "as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." Those metaphors were likely presented such that the intention was already made clear, and that literal interpretation would have been nonsensical. The focus is on the intent actually getting through to the target, not to the particular words used. A metaphor becomes a lie when the speaker intends the target to believe it as literally true.If I say "this cake is delicious, you should try it" and instead mean it as a metaphor for "the cake is poisoned, it will kill you", then I am responsible for using it in situations where would be interpreted literally. Likewise if anyone uses a metaphor with the expectation of it being misinterpreted they are lying, and Eusebius's support of that is advocation of lying. Thats not the point! Eusebius being against anthropomorphism is irrelevant; his support of something he believed to be false as instruction for those who needed it is my point. He was advocating other people telling falsehoods. How else would a reasonable person understand it?

These are strong words for someone supporting hasty generalization as a valid "heuristic". Or for someone who won't admit that metaphors require mutual understanding. Or for someone who uses the fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule" while simultaneously fleeing to some unknown thread.It appears that you have run out of reasonable debate material and are reduced to mudslinging, so I am going to call it here.

This seems right in line with your stance on metaphoric interpretation. I'll assume you meant it as an unspecified metaphor for "I have nothing useful to add to the conversation."You also appear to have stopped replying to those debating you in that other thread, and you haven't opened up any new avenues of conversation other than "neener neener" so I see little point in resurrecting that thread.

This appears to be a circular argument, and an unwarranted one at that. You basically seem to be saying that in order to determine if a god exists or not, you have to first come to a conclusion if a god exists or not.I don't think that you have established that a metaphysical decision about the existence of a god is required in order to investigate the concept. You have to assume the existence of an outside and trees before you can determine the best method of feeling them, but assuming the existence of a god is not required before you can investigate that question.You would have to assume that existence is a separate state from non-existence, and that observation is a reasonable method to determine if things exist. But what I don't see is any reason to think that the discovery of a god's existence from an atheistic perspective is going to fundamentally alter our concept of what existence entails. And the point everyone else is trying to make is that your claim is astonishingly ignorant, and simply not true. Both on the count of other world views lacking explanations, and the Christian world view providing them. And when you are asked why murder is wrong, you will answer "Because God said so." And when asked why what God says is wrong should be considered immoral, you will say "Because God said so." You don't have an infinite regress so much as mental constipation.

How could it be any other way? How exactly do you propose to pawn your moral responsibility off on someone else? How can you consider yourself a moral agent if devoid of moral responsibility for your decisions? And God sets up rules about when you can and cannot enslave people. If Huntard was to provide his address and schedule appropriate murder hours... then yes, he would presumably be condoning his own murder.In the case of the Christian god it is much easier considering he doesn't get out of Genesis without directly ordering slavery (Genesis 9:25-27). Oxen are not moral agents. This is an important dividing line so we don't waste time wondering about the ethical impact of our actions on rocks and such. Are you claiming to be omniscient? If not, how can you seriously argue about uncertainty? What do you gain by filling those gaps with gods?

quote:

---

Genesis 22:2 "Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.""
Genesis 22:15-18 "The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.""

---

Does this story and moral sound like God praising moral consideration and correction, or God praising blind obedience in the face of moral qualms?

So the stupider we are, the less morally obligated we will be considered by God? For instance, if we are born too stupid to understand complex ethical situations, God won't fault us for that inability and only judge based on those ethical decisions we *can* understand.Apparently, being born a sociopath with a complete inability to understand morality is a golden ticket into heaven. Who knew?

Apparently, considering you attacked the definition of sociopathy and my terminology rather than actually addressing the point of the inability to understand ethics being a free pass to heaven.