Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was Jesus A Legitimate Child?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 61 of 65 (480605)
09-04-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
09-04-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Omnipotence and Eternity
Regardless - A God that cannot lie cannot also be omnipotent.
According to my preferred definition of the word he can be. And according to your preferred definition he can't be. Lets leave it at that shall we?
-
Rationally? Rationally there is no justification for belief in God at all.
We're not discussing belief in God at all. We're discussing the rationale (if any) behind us trying to apply laws God applies to us ... to God.
I made a point...
-
So lies are only self serving?
As a starting basis for discussion it would seem reasonable to suggest that self-serving will lie at a lies root. I'd add 'unrighteous' on front of self-serving by edit.
-
What about deviation from truth?
Same thing applies. It's not what you call it that matters. It is a lie if unrighteous self-serving. Me telling a gunman who knocks on the door that "No, I'm not iano, he won't be back until next week!" wouldn't be a lie according to this view.
-
Is this a "lawyers" definition of the term "lie"? Devised to extricate God from any responsibility for anything that could be construed as a lie?
I suggest the notions presented as to what constitutes a lie applies to everyone - God included. So no is answer to your question.
Normally speaking you enquire whether x, y, z is good and try to pick a standard against which to evaluate it. But if God is the standard against which you need to measure then there is as much point in asking whether he is good as there is asking which way is south when standing on the North Pole.
I understand that God smiting nations appears to render him a genocidal maniac but that is only because folk are not stepping back and looking at the position God occupies. Instead they try to drag God down as if he belongs to the category of "comparable" humans such a Hitler or Stalin or Mao. Surely you must see the futility and inappropriateness - not to say sheer irrationality - of such a response to God.
-
Well he is only "not a sinner" if we accept your premise that everything God does is just and good by definition. If morality is absolute and universal then God is a bigger sinner than most.
Either God sits at the top of the heap (so to speak) or he doesn't. He is the source of everything and the standard against which everything else much be measured. There is no other standard that can arise outside of him (even if he permits people to set their own standards for a time). Any attempt to invoke another standard, as if God must submit to it is sheer and utter bootstrappery. You'd need God to agree to submit to it in the first instance
-
Fine. I fully accept that I have no right to take your life.
I'll take that as meaning you fully accept that God has the right to issue law regarding what is acceptable (to him, your God) for you to do and what is not. I would repeat that his motivation isn't to play big, bad God.
Rather he knows full well you will trample all over his law and his true motivation is to use your lawbreaking to prise you from your sin. To save you from your sin by way of utilising your tendency to sin.
It's pure genuis at work. I do hope you come to understand someday, it's blow your mind like nothing else ever has.
-
The thing I question is Gods right to treat us as we would treat inanimate possessions. Worse even than pets.
Man wilfully decides to do what he knows to be wrong and is punished for it. Whereas a pet might 'wilfully' resist it's master, it won't wilfully do what it knows to be wrong. It doesn't know what is right and wrong.
Apples v. Pears
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2008 7:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 09-05-2008 1:47 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 62 of 65 (480643)
09-05-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Mylakovich
09-04-2008 10:45 AM


Re: Good?
iano's posts are powerful examples of the danger of religious belief overpowering and subverting our common sense. In what other philosophy would you justify the extermination of nations of people, blanket fiat of tyrants, establishing universal edicts yet be exempt from them. This is the exact mentality that allows the worst attrocities to be commited by those who claim inspiration from your authority.
Your conflating two issues: a justification (I'd prefer explanation) for God smiting nations and a justification for people who claim to be inspired by God smiting nations. If you want to make a case that the former view must lead towards the latter then fire away.
It is my fervent hope that a philosophy of rational ethical behavior will eventually defeat this kind of utter blind obediance to authory. To me this is the true purpose of this entire forum (indeed every 'debate' between reason and religion).
The obedience isn't blind - it's rational. God is sovereign and once you see that it follows that you should do as he asks.
Now that you've got your mission statement out of the way, perhaps you could use some of this common sense of yours to explain to me precisely what is wrong with God smiting nations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 10:45 AM Mylakovich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 09-05-2008 1:54 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 65 (480666)
09-05-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by iano
09-04-2008 7:54 PM


Truth and Lies
According to my preferred definition of the word he can be. And according to your preferred definition he can't be. Lets leave it at that shall we?
Defining words to meet ones arguments is just a method of avoiding the underlying concepts.
Imagine a being as powerful as God but who can do both good and evil. Who can lie. And who is not limited by logic in any way. This being would be 'more omnipotent' than God but the term 'more omnipotent' is patently stupid. Thus the only obvious conclusion is that God is in fact not omnipotent by any meaningful conceptual standard of the term omnipotence.
Of course if you want to define the word 'omnipotence' in terms of the abilities that God has available to him then by definition alone God is indeed omnipotent. But the underlying flaw in the thinking demonstrated above remains regardless of definitions.
As a starting basis for discussion it would seem reasonable to suggest that self-serving will lie at a lies root. I'd add 'unrighteous' on front of self-serving by edit
Well I agree that the most common reasons for lying are self serving but that far from demonstrates that this is necessarily so.
If I lie to save someone else from persecution surely that is still a lie? The truth of what is said must be the basis of a lie rather than the intent? No? Where does truth come into your definition? If at all?
Same thing applies. It's not what you call it that matters. It is a lie if unrighteous self-serving. Me telling a gunman who knocks on the door that "No, I'm not iano, he won't be back until next week!" wouldn't be a lie according to this view.
Well it seems you are now defining the term 'lie' to meet your arguments as well as the term 'omnipotent'
By this definition God is perfectly capable of telling "untruths" as long as those untruths result in "good" as opposed to "truths" that would result in "evil" (which he is incapable of). But seeing as God defines what is "good" and what is "evil" he can say just about any damn thing he pleases. God is as capable of "untruths" as you or I.
In other words we have no reason to believe the veracity of anything God says at all. By your flawed and circular reasoning anyway.
It's pure genuis at work. I do hope you come to understand someday, it's blow your mind like nothing else ever has.
The ability of theists to convulute, contort and contrive such that they utterly convince themselves that there is good and meaning behind every quite evidently indiffernt act of nature is what blows my mind.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by iano, posted 09-04-2008 7:54 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 65 (480667)
09-05-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by iano
09-05-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Good?
The obedience isn't blind - it's rational. God is sovereign and once you see that it follows that you should do as he asks.
If God asked you to kill a room full of people would you do it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by iano, posted 09-05-2008 10:26 AM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 65 (480677)
09-05-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2008 7:51 PM


God is Good?
Because it is illogical? No. I don't think it applies. Logic applies to man who is bound by laws of non-contradiction and physical laws which would prevent him of doing something. God is presumably under no such restriction for a number of theological and philosophical reasons.
So can God create the uncreated? End the eternal? Etc. etc.
This is what I mean when I ask if logic binds Gods actions.
Yes... God cannot sin, theoretically, because God is goodness. God can only do things according to what he is.
But if God defines good and sin is the opposite of that then whatever God does is good and whatever opposes this is bad by definition alone. This is circular. It also leads to some quite bizzarre depictions of 'good' and 'evil'.
When God is being vengeful and retributional he is being 'good' whilst those who might oppose this vengefulness on grounds of compassion would, by this definition, be 'sinful'.
I just do not see how this is compatible with the more sensible aspects of the Christian message (peace, love, forgiveness etc. etc.) or with any sort of morality that could meaningfully be called "absolute"??
It just all seems like an overly intricate web of justification by definition.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2008 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024