What is a God?

[AZSuperman]

It is much clearer to me now, Clark. Thank you.

You have seemed to assumed that when I referred to "God's plan" I meant a plan including a certain series of steps leading to an ultimate goal. I did not mean plan in this way. As I reflect on it, perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that God has an ultimate goal in mind for this world.
I need to make a side comment here, something that's really been eating at me... I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you and many other thesists have a habit of refering to "this world" as if it is one being. You say God has a plan.. er "ultimate goal" for this world. Not a plan for each of his children, or for each and every person, but a plan for the world.

I believe this is an attempt to depersonalize the attrocities committed against the individuals within "this world" as described in the Bible. (Although it may not be a conscience attempt on your part.)

God is like a parent who want her children to grow up to be responsible, level-headed, and independent; this can be called the parent's plan for her child. She cannot however take into account every little thing that will affect her child. Does this mean that her plan is more likely to fail? No, not if she's a good enough parent. She can work to curb or teach her child to curb influences that would lead the child to become hopelessly irresponsible, off-balance, and dependent on her. I hope you're following me.
If a child decides, at a young age, that they want to become a concert pianist... most parents wouldn't react. A few would give him all the reasons why NOT to become a pianist... but the really good parents would sign him up for piano lessons.

When the kid is grumpy, and wants to quit, does a good parent let their child drop out at the first sign of frustration? NO! She forces the child to take lessons when he feels like quiting, because the good parent knows the child's dream is to become a concert pianist, and she wants to help him realize his dream. Eventually, the grumpy stage will pass, and he will again look forward to his lessons... he may go through several stages where frustration sets in, and it's easier to quit, but in the end, when he realizes his dream, he will say: "I would like to thank my Mother, she never let me quit. She made me practice, whether I wanted to or not. She pushed me to go to my lessons even when I wanted to drop out. Without her, I never would've made it this far."

Everyone wants to live in Heaven, in a world without evil, pain, and suffering... God knows this. When we feel grumpy, and can't follow his word, he could easily force us to do his will, until our spirits were again willing. God is not willing to do what a GOOD PARENT knows they must. I'm sure, even the most stubborn soul would declare: "I'd like to thank God, he wouldn't let me quit. When I strayed, he pulled me back, and forced me to do his will - even when I didn't want think it was best. In the end, I couldn't be happier. Thank you God, for staying my hand when neccessary. Without you, I never would've made it this far."

A good parent knows both HOW and WHEN for force their child to make the right decisions.

God has no more right to destroy us, or torture us in Hell for not following his will, then the unfit parent, who never sent their child to piano lessons, has to shoot their child for not becoming a concert pianist.

God uses God's power in a similar way through revelation and intervention. These are God's way of making sure that God's ultimate goal for our world is accessible for us. God does not lay out specific steps for us to follow. We can access eternal life from various personal and cultural contexts.

I hope this finally answers your issue.
God's revelation is hardly reliable... There are thousands of "revelations" from all over the globe, each of them contradicting the next (and sometimes themselves). God's intervention is non-existant. Official prayer studies have shown prayer to be equally as effective as a placebo.

[AZSuperman]

Say we agree on the ethical principle that choking innocent people in their sleep is wrong. If someone disagrees with this principle, you would not find him unethical?
Why don't you pick a more realistic scenario?

Let's say I believe doctor assisted suicide is acceptable in patents who have a terminal illness and live in extreme pain and discomfort... and you say that it's not up to us to decide how and when people die, but that we need to leave that up to God.

Am I moral for helping someone end their suffering?
or
Am I immoral for allowing someone to end their life early?

Are you moral for preventing potential suicides?
or
Are you immoral for refusing a peaceful end for people who are living in pain?


Not all issues as obviously moral or immoral as "chocking someone in there sleep." (Of course, situations could easily be suggested which would make this a moral act.)

[el creyente]

This is supported by scripture.
I know, this was in a response you provided to Yahzi but it's still central to the disagreement I have with you. I still can't understand why my example of god knowing the future (Jesus telling Peter that he would deny him) was dismissed by you as a parable. Wouldn't this (god knowing the future) also be a view that is supported by scripture as much as angels being omniscient? Can I hold the scripture you would provide supporting angels being omniscient as a parable? I know you've been asked this a million times, but let me be the million and one: How do you know what is parable and what is not? How do you know what scripture supports and what it doesn't?
I've been accused here of picking and choosing arbitrarily what I like and don't like in the Bible.
Can you understand these accusations? If not, please see above.
Each document has its own historical and cultural context, and I believe there are flaws and truths in each document necessarily because they were written by flawed human beings.
So the parts of scripture written about angels are truth but the parts of scripture written about god's foreknowledge are flawed? Again, how do you know?
You previously asked me a question about church.
The question I was going to ask was this: In the church you attend, when you get up and say things like "Of course god doesn't know anything about the future" or "Who gives a shit about what the OT says about the Messiah", do you look around and see (1) heads nodding vigorously in agreement, (2) some other form of acceptance, or (3) a complete opposite reaction? If (1) or (2), I was going to ask what church you regularly attend. Granted, I only have limited theistic experience with certain types of churches, so I wanted to expand my knowledge.
I don't go regularly, but this is something I plan to work on. I haven't found a church-home I can feel completely comfortable in.
I think the above may be part of the problem. However, fair winds in you search.

[alienward]

I wouldn't call it an excuse. I call it a question you never really finished answering.
You asked “My question was who was right J or I?�

And my answer was “Neither of them.�

What part of “Neither of them.� do you not understand?

The point was that in various contexts what might constitute a truthful statement can change. From one point IHOP is this way. From another point it's that way. It's natural that different cultures would produce different characterizations of God and different religions.
Yes, culture can influence figments of people’s imaginations. Is this another limitation of your god, in addition to not being able to predict the future, he can’t give people consistent religious experiences?

[Copper Scroll]

I need to make a side comment here, something that's really been eating at me... I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you and many other thesists have a habit of refering to "this world" as if it is one being.
Yes, this world is one being, but the individuals within it do have individual rights and some measure of autonomy. The oneness of the world is often hidden to us by our selfish desires and motivations. It is not always obvious to us that we are so completely dependent upon "this world", that we define ourselves in relation to this world, that we are in constant dialogue with this world. But we do know intuitively that the welfare of "this world" is more important than the welfare of an individual within it. At the same time, the individual's rights must be upheld and protected, because we must treat each other equitably and we wouldn't want all of our rights violated.

You say God has a plan.. er "ultimate goal" for this world. Not a plan for each of his children, or for each and every person, but a plan for the world. What's the difference?

"I would like to thank my Mother, she never let me quit. She made me practice, whether I wanted to or not. She pushed me to go to my lessons even when I wanted to drop out. Without her, I never would've made it this far."
This happens, but I fear that at least as much as this happens the child's initial desire to become a concert pianist turns out to be a whim and this child ends up resenting having to take lessons for something he doesn't care about anymore. That the child had a whim is completely understandable, he's a child, and children's sights don't tend to go very far. Remember in this analogy, we are the children, and remember that our sights don't go a fraction of the distance God's might.

Everyone wants to live in Heaven, in a world without evil, pain, and suffering... God knows this. When we feel grumpy, and can't follow his word, he could easily force us to do his will, until our spirits were again willing.
This would not necessarily happen. Many would use God's intervention as a crutch.

"I'd like to thank God, he wouldn't let me quit. When I strayed, he pulled me back, and forced me to do his will - even when I didn't want think it was best. In the end, I couldn't be happier. Thank you God, for staying my hand when neccessary. Without you, I never would've made it this far." I've actually heard this sort of thing in awards acceptance speeches.

A good parent knows both HOW and WHEN for force their child to make the right decisions. This implies that you don't think that God knows how and when to intervene. Who are you to decide this? What is your standard? (Remember, in the analogy, you and I are the children.)

God has no more right to destroy us, or torture us in Hell for not following his will, I have to stop you here, because I never said God destroys or tortures people.


God's revelation is hardly reliable... There are thousands of "revelations" from all over the globe, each of them contradicting the next (and sometimes themselves). These revelations were given to different people for different reasons, so... they are different.

God's intervention is non-existant. in your opinion.

Official prayer studies have shown prayer to be equally as effective as a placebo. I've heard.

[Copper Scroll]

Why don't you pick a more realistic scenario? I don't think you fully understand the context in which my scenario was written.

[AZSuperman]

Yes, this world is one being, but the individuals within it do have individual rights and some measure of autonomy. The oneness of the world is often hidden to us by our selfish desires and motivations. It is not always obvious to us that we are so completely dependent upon "this world", that we define ourselves in relation to this world, that we are in constant dialogue with this world.
So... the reactions to our actions, the effects or our causes, are alive... and the world is alive? (I'm not sure if you're refering to the globe, or to the human population as a whole... or both.)

What evidence do you have that we are all sub-parts of one living entity?

But we do know intuitively that the welfare of "this world" is more important than the welfare of an individual within it. At the same time, the individual's rights must be upheld and protected, because we must treat each other equitably and we wouldn't want all of our rights violated.
I agree completely.

You say God has a plan.. er "ultimate goal" for this world. Not a plan for each of his children, or for each and every person, but a plan for the world.
What's the difference?

If God doesn't have a plan for each of his children, then they become expendable. Attrocities committed against entire races can be rationalized as being "unfortunate for few individuals, but better for the world." (Hitler used this rationalization for his systematic destruction of the Jews.)

This happens, but I fear that at least as much as this happens the child's initial desire to become a concert pianist turns out to be a whim and this child ends up resenting having to take lessons for something he doesn't care about anymore. That the child had a whim is completely understandable, he's a child, and children's sights don't tend to go very far. Remember in this analogy, we are the children, and remember that our sights don't go a fraction of the distance God's might.
The analogy is that we would want to go to Heaven, I'm sure you're not going to say our desire to go to Heaven would turn out to be a whim, and we'd later decide we'd rather be destroyed or burned in Hell.

This would not necessarily happen. Many would use God's intervention as a crutch.
So? Is it better to destroy someone, or to burn them in Hell?

A good parent knows both HOW and WHEN for force their child to make the right decisions.This implies that you don't think that God knows how and when to intervene. Who are you to decide this? What is your standard? (Remember, in the analogy, you and I are the children.)
God doesn't intervene and take control...

I have to stop you here, because I never said God destroys or tortures people.
You've quoted from the Bible, which says God will send people to the "Lake of Fire," it describes Hell as a rather nasty place (torture.)

You've said you only obtain eternal life if you live in accordence to God's will, which means if you're not sent to Hell, and you no longer live, then you have been destroyed.

If you have some other way of wording it (cease to exist, dissappear, etc) that's great, but it's essentially the same thing.

These revelations were given to different people for different reasons, so... they are different.
That hardly explains away the problem.

How are we supposed to know God's will if everything is contradictory. You said, "they were given to different people for different reasons" Well that's great, but unless God is going to start faxing individual revelations to each person, he can't expect us to have any idea what he wants us to do.

God's intervention is non-existant.
in your opinion.
Can you show otherwise?

[John A. Broussard]

God is acting through time.

Since you won't (or can't) respond to my other posts, I thought I'd try something easy.

Please explain what you mean by, "God is acting through time."

Thank you.

[AZSuperman]

I don't think you fully understand the context in which my scenario was written.
I fully understand the context in which you scenario was written. However, you missed the point of the argument.

The original point being discusses was whether someone who disagreed with you was stupid, wrong, unethical, etc. (Because you claim to know and follow the will of God.)

You provided an obvious example, of someone being chocked to death... Then asked if we would consider that person wrong or unethical.

You missed the entire point, in which there are numerous (not so obvious) scenarios in which the "right" answer is not so easily known.

[Copper Scroll]

I know, this was in a response you provided to Yahzi but it's still central to the disagreement I have with you. I still can't understand why my example of god knowing the future (Jesus telling Peter that he would deny him) was dismissed by you as a parable. Posts 367 and 373, I don't think, are dismissals of the encounter between Jesus and Peter as a parable. They are me speculating. I don't think the encounter really qualifies as a parable at all. My point was that a possibility was that the written account of the encounter itself was not literally true, or it could have been a literally true account of a prediction--a well detailed prediction, but a prediction still. Might the angels not be omniscient? I suppose it's possible, but I have no reason to think that they are not. To me, however, the possibility of anyone possessing certain knowledge of future events and their sequence means that our actions are determined by previous events. This is a stance I cannot take for various reasons. People are free to disagree.

How do you know what is parable and what is not? How do you know what scripture supports and what it doesn't? I think this paragraph might be worth repeating: "I'd like to point out here that our worldview (meaning the worldview of our culture in current times) and the conditions under which we communicate (rationally) and understand the concept of "truth" have certain fundamental differences with those of the culture that produced the biblical texts. The orientation that produced the Bible didn't see contradictions where we see them, I would argue. Our orientation is much more empirical and fact-based. Many of the ideas that have contributed to the making of our current orientation didn't even exist during ancient times. So in order to communicate rationally here during these modern times and within our current culture, I believe, that it is ultimately necessary to contradict certain statements made in the Bible. In my opinion, the invisible differences between our paradigms or discourses (borrowing Kuhn and Foucault) is the reason why many atheists here feel that the Bible cannot be rationally defended."

When we try to view the Bible as we do modern documents, evaluating it in terms of factuality, we miss the point. What the Bible can do for us is inform us on how to live life, how to think and act. The whole thing could be viewed as "not literally true" and still retain its functionality in this respect. So, my answer is that it doesn't matter what is literally true there and what is not. Apply the principles that underlie it.

Can you understand these accusations? I think so, but I don't think my accusers have fully recognized that (first and foremost) the Bible is not a single document that must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and (second) the paradigmic/discursive differences between us and the people who wrote the Bible.

"Of course god doesn't know anything about the future" or "Who gives a shit about what the OT says about the Messiah",
I don't think these are fair representations of my perspective. To me the difference between the view of God reflected in the OT is significantly different from the view of the NT. Jesus ushered in a new theology that altered the ancient Hebrew perspective. One must take this into account when reading both the OT and NT.

I think the above may be part of the problem. However, fair winds in you search. I have encounter more discomfort with my rejection of certain Christian dogmas in this forum than I expected. I have suspected that part of the reason is because the atheists here are used to arguing their points with more dogmatic Christians than myself. The atheists here want me to accept the Bible in whole and without question so that my argument can be challenged simply by siting contradictions within the Bible and between the Bible and our own social values. Am I wrong? Where am I mistaken here?

[John A. Broussard]

When we try to view the Bible as we do modern documents, evaluating it in terms of factuality, we miss the point.

Exactly.

To assume that the bible is a factual document, recording faithfully actual historical events, is by far the most serious flaw in that branch of Christianity that does so.

[Copper Scroll]

What part of “Neither of them.� do you not understand?
The part about how, in order to be correct and true, directions to a location must include distance information, but while some distance information is too vague, exact distance measurements are not necessary.

What this appears to be indicative of is a very narrow standard for what you regard as a truthful statement.

Yes, culture can influence figments of people’s imaginations. Is this another limitation of your god, in addition to not being able to predict the future, he can’t give people consistent religious experiences? Double-Ouch!

[Copper Scroll]

So... the reactions to our actions, the effects or our causes, are alive... and the world is alive? (I'm not sure if you're refering to the globe, or to the human population as a whole... or both.)
Both, I guess.

What evidence do you have that we are all sub-parts of one living entity?
Well, the world develops, changes, and moves like any other living entity. The actions of individual organs in our bodies might lead one to regard each organ as its own living entity. We can get even more specific and speak about individual cells the same way. Why don't we regard each organ and each cell as its own entity? Because they are so entirely dependent upon the whole (animal body). I would argue that we are each as dependent upon the whole world, of which we are a part.

If God doesn't have a plan for each of his children, then they become expendable. Attrocities committed against entire races can be rationalized as being "unfortunate for few individuals, but better for the world." (Hitler used this rationalization for his systematic destruction of the Jews.)
What Hitler failed to do, however (and this might sound corny), was follow the Golden Rule. Each individual's rights must be respected because we are all equal (or should be) and if one individual's rights are violated, all of our rights can be violated the same way. Hitler (needless to say) did not regard the Jews as his equals.

God has a plan for the world and each individual has a part to play in it. In every situation and moment in her life, each individual must choose whether to participate or not.

The analogy is that we would want to go to Heaven, I'm sure you're not going to say our desire to go to Heaven would turn out to be a whim, and we'd later decide we'd rather be destroyed or burned in Hell. Okay, I follow your argument a little better now. What you're saying is that if a child, while on the righteous path, says, "Gee, God, this is really tough--being righteous and all. I want to do something else," God, as a good parent, should literally force his hand and make him do right until he figures out how to do it on his own? I would argue that in this situation God's intervention becomes a crutch, and the child never learns how to be virtuous and righteous on his own. The child has to do it himself in order to learn how to do it.

If what you're saying is that God should just make it easier for the child to be righteous until he "gets the hang of it", then I would argue that righteousness and virtue are not like playing the piano in that you don't just "get the hang of it". There are too many different situations in life that provide the opportunity for righteousness--some easier than others. For a child, someone immature, things never seem easy enough.

Some people have said that these sorts of things have happened in their lives. I don't doubt them.

So? Is it better to destroy someone, or to burn them in Hell? I don't know about the whole burning in Hell thing, but if our purpose in life is the free practice of righteousness and virtue (as I would argue), we would not be serving our purpose in either being unfree or failing to practice righteousness. One is just as bad as the other. In either situation, we cease being who we really are.

You've quoted from the Bible, which says God will send people to the "Lake of Fire," it describes Hell as a rather nasty place (torture.) Since I don't plan on going to Hell, I guess it really doesn't matter what I think about it, but... I think the Bible characterizes it this way in order for it to serve as a deterrant from sin.

I don't think I've quoted from the Bible here, but I have attributed many of my ideas to the Bible. But the Bible should not always be taken literally or viewed as a single monolithic document.

You've said you only obtain eternal life if you live in accordence to God's will, which means if you're not sent to Hell, and you no longer live, then you have been destroyed. Sure, but who's doing the destroying? I would argue that a free person chooses this for herself.

That hardly explains away the problem.

How are we supposed to know God's will if everything is contradictory. You said, "they were given to different people for different reasons" Well that's great, but unless God is going to start faxing individual revelations to each person, he can't expect us to have any idea what he wants us to do. You might hate doing this, but it might help if I had a specific example of one of these contradictions to work with.

Can you show otherwise? Well, people have testified to God's intervention in their lives.

[AZSuperman]

I don't think my accusers have fully recognized that (first and foremost) the Bible is not a single document that must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and (second) the paradigmic/discursive differences between us and the people who wrote the Bible.
Actually, we understand that very well. We've asked you several times to provide an objective method for determining which texts should be taken literally, which texts should be taken as parable, and which texts should be completely ignored.

I must ask, since you reject some of the canonised books, are there any non-canonical books you accept?

What about books from other religions? Have you read any? If so, have you found any non-Christian works which you also accept? If not, what objective methods did you use to disqualify them?

We all understand the Bible is not one book. In fact, I've even charged you to use your superiour knowledge and personal experience to compile your own version of the Bible, so we can all benefit from your expertise.

I have encounter more discomfort with my rejection of certain Christian dogmas in this forum than I expected. I have suspected that part of the reason is because the atheists here are used to arguing their points with more dogmatic Christians than myself. The atheists here want me to accept the Bible in whole and without question so that my argument can be challenged simply by siting contradictions within the Bible and between the Bible and our own social values. Am I wrong? Where am I mistaken here?
Most of the Christians we encounter are "non-standard" Christians. The discomfort you've noticed is frustration on our part. Due to your inability to provide the method you use to determine which verses you accept and which you reject. It appears that you pick and choose specific verses, sometimes within the same book, accepting some parts and rejecting others... all without any explanation or method. (Other than just a stubborn desire to ignore anything which doesn't sit well with you.)

The discomfort comes, not from your lack of accepting standard Christian dogma's, but from your apparent desire to cite the Bible as a reference for your believes, then ignore it whenever we cite from the same reference.

[Copper Scroll]

Since you won't (or can't) respond to my other posts, I thought I'd try something easy.
If I responded, I'd just be repeating myself


Please explain what you mean by, "God is acting through time."
God acts during what we perceive as moments in time.

[Yahzi]

The angels and their nature are not central to my argument.
The angels are not, but character of God is. You assert that God is good, and that God keeps sentient beings in virtual slavery simply because they are not human. I am asking you to explain this contradiction, since we normally consider such unfair treatment as "not good."

You have conceded that God is unfair (with your various examples). Please explain how He can remain "good" while being "unfair."

When you say "figure out" and "puzzle" the implication is that purposeful trickery is the challenge and cunning wit is the key.
It is purposeful trickery. God made the world in such a way that we cannot know His will. God did this on purpose. Unless you are suggesting that it was an accident.

But even in these situations, the right action is not hard to "figure out"; it's just hard to do.
Apparently you have not noticed the disconnect between intention and result that is a part of our material world.

But more importantly, this contradicts your position. You keep saying that if God told us His will we would lose our freedom, but apparently if we figure out God's will on our own we still have freedom to chose between doing his will or not? Where does the freedom come in - is it in choosing to do his will or not (in which case, why does it matter how we know his will?) Or is it in not knowing his will (in which case, figuring out his will makes us just as unfree?)

We can't categorically say that all atheists are righteous, but I do agree that many are.
But you don't - unless you think they are stupid. You have already established that anyone who disagrees with you is a lying or stupid. If you now admit that some atheists are not lying about their position or the knowledge they have, we must conclude you think they are stupid.

Perhaps now you will begin to understand the danger in presuming that anyone that disagrees with you is lying or stupid.

God does will us to choose good for its own sake;
Oops! Now that I know that, I am unable to freely choose differently. Which means you just wrecked God's plan.

--something we do quite naturally as we shape a world around us that reinforces virtue.
Virtue is not "natural," anymore than literacy is. Do you think people naturally shape a world that reinforces literacy? Or do you think it is something we have to work at - and the more you know about teaching literacy, the better result your efforts will produce?

Do you think people would suddenly lose their ability to read if God himself came down and taught them how?

I wouldn't go this far.
Why?

We know you wouldn't go so far as to admit that God talk is useless, according to your understanding of what God wants. But we don't know why you wouldn't go this far. It seems to be the logical conclusion. Why wouldn't you embrace the logical conclusion?

People need hope when their world appears to nihilistic to them.
The world only appears nihilstic to them because they have been taught that it is. Do you think the world appears nihlistic to Australian aborignes?

Christianity starts off with the premise that a) we used to live in perfection but screwed it up, b) and therefore we deserve eternal death, c) but nothing we can do of our own power will affect this, d) so our entire lives are no more meaningful than the SAT exam, e) because eternal perfect life in some other world is the goal, f) and life is only meaningful if it is spent in service to the guy who controls the rewards that we get in the next life, because nothing in this life is worth anything compared to eternal glory.

Tell people that crap long enough and of course they become nilhistic.

The promise of eternal life brings that hope. Now, I would agree that there is some danger in this. The promise of eternal life for many has become an excuse to inaction.
It is not an excuse to inaction. It is a logical barrier to any action other than worshipping God. I know you hate it when I talk about the Bible, but if you read the NT you will see that Paul thought people should not even get married. He (quite logically) felt that people should devote all of their time and attention to God, and that trivial things (like putting away money for retirement, or plowing the fields) should be set aside in favor of glorifying God.

If people actually believed in eternal life, they of course they would consider this one less valuable. They would be happy to leave it. Instead of spending tons of money on prolonging their life, they would spend that money on spreading the word. Instead of stupid vaccinations that only cause people to live longer, they would print Bibles. Instead of eliminating malaria, they would hold Sunday school classes. Instead of crying at funerals, they would cheer.

Go rent "The Island." It's a stupid movie, but at least they got that part right: if you tell people that death is a trip to paradise, and they believe you, then they cheer when they get selected.

Some people are not moral enough by themselves to be "righteous atheists".
Ok... so you are saying that Christians are people who are not moral enough to be atheists?

Let's get this clear: Christianity exists for those people who are innately less moral than atheists. So the reason God does not reveal himself to us atheists is because He does not have to: we are good enough to do good on our own, without having to be threatened/bribed.

And thus the fact that God revealed himself to you is proof that you are morally weaker than the people on this board.

Is that really what you mean to say? I think it makes sense, but I find it a little difficult to believe that is what you meant.

(Before you answer, you might want to consider that Christian notion of humility).

The angels who became devils had us to be jealous of and hateful toward. We would have no object for these feelings and no motivation to disobey God.
That is not an answer to my question.

1. You asserted that perfect knowledge of God's will destroys the ability to choose to go against God's will.

2. You asserted that angels have perfect knowledge of God's will.

3. You asserted that Satan, an angel, chose to go against God's will.

QED: One of the above assertions must be wrong.

Therefore, you argument fails. You have not established why God does not just tell us what he wants.

Say we agree on the ethical principle that choking innocent people in their sleep is wrong. If someone disagrees with this principle, you would not find him unethical?
If he had rational reasons to think that, then I would just consider him wrong. Not necessarily stupid, lying, or evil, but possibly just misinformed. The problem I have with your stated position is that you do not seem to understand that people who start with different facts than you might reach different conclusions. Now, their fact-set might be incomplete, or contain false facts, in which case their conclusions would be wrong; but that's not the same thing as presuming they reached the wrong conclusion because they are stupid or lying about what facts they have.

Given that you have acknowledged that you only know of God because God gave you a direct experience, and given that you have acknowledged we atheists do not have access to that experience, how can you possibly assert that we reach our conclusion out of stupidity or lack of integrity?

It is as if I asked you to add up a column of numbers, but secretly erased one of the digits. And then when you get the wrong answer, I tell you that you are either too stupid to add, or too lazy to do it right and are just lying about how hard you tried.

You must concede that, lacking the special knowledge you have, we athiests have reached the only rational and logical conclusion; that our conclusion is a product of honest thought, serious searching, reached with careful and appropriate consideration, with full integrity and love of truth. The reason we disagree with you is not because we are stupid or lying, but because God has not spoken to us.

And your coming here to laugh at and scorn us for not knowing what you know when God has not chosen to tell us is just cruel school-yard bullying.

[AZSuperman]

Well, the world develops, changes, and moves like any other living entity. The actions of individual organs in our bodies might lead one to regard each organ as its own living entity. We can get even more specific and speak about individual cells the same way. Why don't we regard each organ and each cell as its own entity? Because they are so entirely dependent upon the whole (animal body). I would argue that we are each as dependent upon the whole world, of which we are a part.
Alright, I can see where you would think that. According to your definition, cities are also sentient creatures, and we are the "cells." As are countries, religions, businesses, families, charitiable organizations, the zoo, or any other group of people working together.

With this definition, not only are we one being made up of several smaller beings (no argument there) but we're also smaller beings making up several larger creatures. (A person can be involved in several organizations, and therefore be a "cell" in several larger creatures.)

What Hitler failed to do, however (and this might sound corny), was follow the Golden Rule. Each individual's rights must be respected because we are all equal (or should be) and if one individual's rights are violated, all of our rights can be violated the same way. Hitler (needless to say) did not regard the Jews as his equals.
I agree, my point was simply that individuals can be sacrificed for the good of the whole (with or without their permission) if God's plan is only for the whole, and not the individual.

Okay, I follow your argument a little better now. What you're saying is that if a child, while on the righteous path, says, "Gee, God, this is really tough--being righteous and all. I want to do something else," God, as a good parent, should literally force his hand and make him do right until he figures out how to do it on his own? I would argue that in this situation God's intervention becomes a crutch, and the child never learns how to be virtuous and righteous on his own. The child has to do it himself in order to learn how to do it.
Forcing a child to play the piano, draw, speak french, read, or do karate will result with a child who knows how to do those things very well.

Even if God's intervention does become a crutch, is it better to destroy the child?

If what you're saying is that God should just make it easier for the child to be righteous until he "gets the hang of it", then I would argue that righteousness and virtue are not like playing the piano in that you don't just "get the hang of it". There are too many different situations in life that provide the opportunity for righteousness--some easier than others. For a child, someone immature, things never seem easy enough.
So God can't help someone "get the hang of it?" How powerful is your God really if he can't teach a basic concept to his creation?

Since I don't plan on going to Hell, I guess it really doesn't matter what I think about it, but... I think the Bible characterizes it this way in order for it to serve as a deterrant from sin.
No one plans on going to Hell, but if you're wrong you're going anyway!

I believe the whole concept is just a threat to gain (and keep) converts... and their money. Basically, it's theological blackmail.

I don't think I've quoted from the Bible here, but I have attributed many of my ideas to the Bible.
Same basic thing.

But the Bible should not always be taken literally or viewed as a single monolithic document.
It's not.

Sure, but who's doing the destroying? I would argue that a free person chooses this for herself.
People don't freely usually choose to stop existing (or burn in Hell). If a situation has been put in place which creates a scenario where the wrong choice will result in death and destruction, I argue that it's the person who set up the scenario who is doing the destroying.

You might hate doing this, but it might help if I had a specific example of one of these contradictions to work with.
How about some basic contradictions:

Bible vs. Qu'ran
Bible vs. Book of Mormon
Qu'ran vs. Book of Mormon
Bible vs. Bible (internal contradictions)
Qu'ran vs. Qu'ran
Book of Mormon vs. Book of Mormon
Bible vs. Reality (verses which disagree with the known world)
Qu'ran vs. Reality
Book of Mormon vs. Reality

There are dozens of other "Holy Books" which claim to be revelation from God. They are all contradictory.

Well, people have testified to God's intervention in their lives.
People have also testified of being abducted by UFO's, traveling back in time, and seeing Elvis alive.

I need more than anecdotal evidence before I will believe someones claim.

[Copper Scroll]

Actually, we understand that very well. We've asked you several times to provide an objective method for determining which texts should be taken literally, which texts should be taken as parable, and which texts should be completely ignored. I don't think any texts should be completely ignored, some are just less relevant (to me, to us) than others. Understand that relevance is determined subjectively. If you're asking for an objective method, I am not equipped to provide that other than to say that you should ask yourself after every verse you read, "Now, what should I think and do?". As another poster reminded me, we each do have a personal relationship with God and we each occupy different positions in this world. How to apply the principles in the Bible to one's life is a determination one should make with reason, cognizant of the historical/cultural/personal contexts in which the scriptures were written, and fully conscious of one's own personal situation.

See also the second and third paragraphs of post 510 and bring any unresolved issues or questions to my attention.

I must ask, since you reject some of the canonised books, are there any non-canonical books you accept? Though I would not take everything literally in those books I "accept," I wouldn't flat out reject any of those texts, canonized or otherwise... well... there are those so-called "Infancy Gospels" that are really questionable, but I haven't looked at them that close up. I do particularly like the (Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Infancy Gospel by the same name). I do approach the epistles with caution, because I don't think their authors meant for them to be used by anyone except for those ancient churches they were written for.

What about books from other religions? Have you read any? If so, have you found any non-Christian works which you also accept?
Sure: the Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching. I haven't read much of the Quran, but have found value in what I have read. I've had some generic lessons on Buddhism, Hinduism, animisms and mysticisms of various sorts, and have found some value in them all. There are disagreements, but these don't bother me because there appears to be a core common among them.

The discomfort you've noticed is frustration on our part.
On this issue, I think you ought to speak for yourself. Some posters' arguments here have been based on my accept a certain principle from the Bible and either "rejecting" another or refusing to discuss the Bible. Not everyone here who wants to argue about the Bible has asked me for a method--just you and one other poster.

[Copper Scroll]

The angels are not, but character of God is. You assert that God is good, and that God keeps sentient beings in virtual slavery simply because they are not human. I am asking you to explain this contradiction, since we normally consider such unfair treatment as "not good." Well, there is nothing in this that reflects that you have read any of my responses on this issue. I won't bother to repeat them.

You have conceded that God is unfair (with your various examples). Please explain how He can remain "good" while being "unfair." I didn't say that God is unfair. I said that unfairness between beings is unavoidable if those beings are different. As long as there is difference, there is unfairness. You still fail to answer any of my questions on this issue: ["Do you want everybody to be the same and have the same?" I assume your answer is yes. My new question is how far we should go with this? Should we have the same color hair, the same clothes, tastes in music, personality traits, height and weight?]


But more importantly, this contradicts your position. You keep saying that if God told us His will we would lose our freedom, but apparently if we figure out God's will on our own we still have freedom to chose between doing his will or not? Where does the freedom come in - is it in choosing to do his will or not (in which case, why does it matter how we know his will?) Or is it in not knowing his will (in which case, figuring out his will makes us just as unfree?) In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense. In a particular sense, we do not always know exactly how to apply it to particular situations especially when we are distracted by "lower" drives and motivations. My point is that if we knew clearly how to apply God's will in every instance and every situation and knew death as the result of failing to do God's will in every instance and every situation and this knowledge was right in front of us, we would be compelled (forced) to do the right thing.


But you don't - unless you think they are stupid. You have already established that anyone who disagrees with you is a lying or stupid. Now, this is not true. It's something you've said and I've challenged before. I won't bother to go fish the original quote and to argue this point, because it's ridiculous. Let this resolve it: I don't think just anyone who disagrees with me is a lying or stupid. This would go against my high respect for religious pluralism. What you seem to have done (purposefully or not) is cut off a part of a statement I've made and taken it to an unnecessary extreme. This post will be the last time I respond to it; it disgusts me.

Virtue is not "natural," anymore than literacy is As God's plan unfolds, virtue does become (is becoming) more natural.

Do you think people would suddenly lose their ability to read if God himself came down and taught them how? To use this analogy, God has taught us how to read. My point is that God can't read for us or tell us what the words on the page say. If God did either of these, God would be reading--not us.


Why? We know you wouldn't go so far as to admit that God talk is useless, according to your understanding of what God wants. But we don't know why you wouldn't go this far. It seems to be the logical conclusion. Why wouldn't you embrace the logical conclusion? Well, I continue to write: "I believe we will get to the point where talking about God will become less important, because our way will be clearer and we would have moved closer to God."


The world only appears nihilstic to them because they have been taught that it is. When you see senseless violence and destruction up close and it's almost all you see, you have to be taught that the world is nihilistic?

Do you think the world appears nihlistic to Australian aborignes? I don't know. What's your point here?

If people actually believed in eternal life, they of course they would consider this one less valuable.
This world is where it will happen. I don't believe with alien heavens.

Ok... so you are saying that Christians are people who are not moral enough to be atheists? No, neither was that implied. To answer your question: I suppose there are some Christians who need the religious practices and beliefs in order to practice morality, but I would never say this about all Christians. I was referring to people who regularly do evil; people who are typically amoral who barely hang on to belief in a God or Higher Power. For these people, to remove belief in God would be very dangerous because their sin would be free to take over. What should happen for these people instead is spiritual guidance. Atheism would ruin these people.

Let's get this clear: Christianity exists for those people who are innately less moral than atheists.
Not clear at all. "By themselves" doesn't mean "innate". I wrote about other "gods" in the lives of habitually sinful people. By themselves with no belief in a God higher than these "gods" (money, sex, material possessions, etc.), these people would not fit for society.

1. You asserted that perfect knowledge of God's will destroys the ability to choose to go against God's will. I didn't say it that strongly. I would say that it undermines free will.

2. You asserted that angels have perfect knowledge of God's will.

3. You asserted that Satan, an angel, chose to go against God's will.
Out of jealousy and hate at the expense of reason.

QED: One of the above assertions must be wrong. Or the devil(s) is crazy or stupid. (Oops.)


If he had rational reasons to think that, then I would just consider him wrong. Not necessarily stupid, lying, or evil, but possibly just misinformed.
Ooooooohhh. This is a ridiculous topic. I'm leaving Semanticsville... stay if you like.

Given that you have acknowledged that you only know of God because God gave you a direct experience, and given that you have acknowledged we atheists do not have access to that experience,
I made no such acknowledgment.

And your coming here to laugh at and scorn us for not knowing what you know when God has not chosen to tell us is just cruel school-yard bullying. Come on now,.. :rolling: do you honestly think that I'm bullying you? (Now, I'm laughing at you. This is the first time.)

[John A. Broussard]

If I responded, I'd just be repeating myself



God acts during what we perceive as moments in time.
Got it.

We can perceive time, but your god can't.

Your god does something, and we perceive of it as happening now. Your god doesn't perceive it as happening at a time which is now, even though we do.

We can talk about tomorrow, but that has no meaning for your god.

What you said doesn't make much sense, but at least I can figure out the meaning of the individual words you are using.

I'd ask you to explain but it would just irritate you into saying you don't want to repeat yourself.

Really, I don't want you to repeat yourself. I'd just like to have you--or someone else in this thread--explain to me just what you are talking about.

I think you are talking about an extremely powerful, sentient being who can't tell time.

Very puzzling.

[Copper Scroll]

We can perceive time, but your god can't. .
I didn't say that.

[John A. Broussard]

I didn't say that God is unfair. I said that unfairness between beings is unavoidable if those beings are different. As long as there is difference, there is unfairness. You still fail to answer any of my questions on this issue: ["Do you want everybody to be the same and have the same?" I assume your answer is yes. My new question is how far we should go with this? Should we have the same color hair, the same clothes, tastes in music, personality traits, height and weight?]

I'm aware that you don't adhere to the standard Christian beliefs such as an omniscient, omnipotent god, so I wonder if you believe in the Christian heaven.

Will everyone be the same there?

I look forward to your possible answer.

[John A. Broussard]

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
We can perceive time, but your god can't. .

CS:I didn't say that.

Oops. Sorry. So your god can perceive time, just the way we do. Your god can perceive that tomorrow follows today, just the way we do. Your god can anticipate the future, just the way we do.

Am I misreading you again?

[Stephen T-B]

"In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense." (Copper Scroll).
Did the Polynesians know God's will before the Christian missionaries arrived and told them what it was? What about the cannibals of Borneo? Does a child brought up by wild dogs know God's will? Did the Japanese who killed and tortured in the name of their Emperor know God's will?
Well, actually they did. They believed their emperor was God.

Where does this leave your argument?

[John A. Broussard]

In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense.
Really?

How do you then account for religions which have no belief in god? Or atheism for that matter? Or agnosticism? Or even Deism, which denies "revelations"?

Please explain how you can make such a totally unfounded generalization?

[AZSuperman]

The angels are not, but character of God is. You assert that God is good, and that God keeps sentient beings in virtual slavery simply because they are not human. I am asking you to explain this contradiction, since we normally consider such unfair treatment as "not good."Well, there is nothing in this that reflects that you have read any of my responses on this issue. I won't bother to repeat them.
It sounds very much like your argument.
...That brings us to angels: Angels are like God's slaves. They are forced to obey God's will...
...it's unethical and immoral for human beings to be enslaved." Angels are not human beings.

But overall, that's unimportant... because you disprove your own argument right here:
Its the angels' omniscience that forces their actions in favor of God's will. God gave the devil(s) the same knowledge but... they disobeyed God. (emphasis mine)
Simply having perfect knowledge of God's will doesn't force the angels to do God's will, evidenced by the fact it didn't force Satan to follow God's will. (Unless Satan is currenly doing God's will... but that opens up a whole new can of worms.)

Your disproved your own argument against giving us perfect knowledge of God's will. Obviously we CAN have free will, and perfect knowledge of God's will. The question now becomes, why didn't God create us omniscient?

[Yahzi]

I said that unfairness between beings is unavoidable if those beings are different. As long as there is difference, there is unfairness.
Sounds an awful lot like separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal).

You still fail to answer any of my questions on this issue: ["Do you want everybody to be the same and have the same?" I assume your answer is yes. My new question is how far we should go with this? Should we have the same color hair, the same clothes, tastes in music, personality traits, height and weight?
How do you get from "every sentient being should have its sentience respected" to "the same color hair?" The only avenue I can figure is deliberate obtuseness. If you have a different explanation, perhaps you would care to share it.

The specific answer is, I mean equality in the same sense the Declaration of Independence uses it: political and moral equality.

I don't think just anyone who disagrees with me is a lying or stupid. What you seem to have done (purposefully or not) is cut off a part of a statement I've made and taken it to an unnecessary extreme. This post will be the last time I respond to it; it disgusts me.
In that case I will provide the entire statement:
Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2961372#post2961372

To use this analogy, God has taught us how to read. My point is that God can't read for us or tell us what the words on the page say. If God did either of these, God would be reading--not us.
But the point is not to figure out what the words on the page are, the point is to choose whether or not to do what the words say. Again: is the goal to figure out what God wants or to do what God wants?

When you see senseless violence and destruction up close and it's almost all you see, you have to be taught that the world is nihilistic?
Hyperbole much? I mean, you're posting from America, not Somalia.

I didn't say it that strongly. I would say that it undermines free will.
God gives angels clear, unmistakable, one-size-fits-all knowledge of God's will. Knowledge of this level of clarity forces the angels to act a certain way.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2949040#post2949040
My point is that if we knew clearly how to apply God's will in every instance and every situation and knew death as the result of failing to do God's will in every instance and every situation and this knowledge was right in front of us, we would be compelled (forced) to do the right thing.
(from this very post)

Or the devil(s) is crazy or stupid. (Oops.)
You asserted that perfect knowledge prevented choice, that angels had perfect knowledge, and that Satan exercised free will. These statements contradict themselves.

Ooooooohhh. This is a ridiculous topic. I'm leaving Semanticsville... stay if you like.
It is semantics to suggest that a person who starts with different facts is wrong instead of lying or stupid?

I made no such acknowledgment.
I know God exists from personal experience independent of the Bible.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2961372#post2961372


As you may have noticed, the bulk of this post consists of me quoting you contradicting yourself. As much as I enjoy this (not!), when my opponent begins contradicting themselves in the space of a single post, I declare victory and stop.

[Copper Scroll]

Sounds an awful lot like separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal)..
Before you level another charge at me for being (self)racist, be a little more responsible and provide a counterexample to "unfairness between beings is unavoidable if those beings are different".


How do you get from "every sentient being should have its sentience respected" to "the same color hair?" This is the second time you've used questions to respond to the question about difference and unfairness--the point being that to some degree unfairness can be found in any situation where difference can be found.

Hyperbole much? I mean, you're posting from America, not Somalia. Another non-answer.
In that case I will provide the entire statement:
Now, that was a little more responsible on your part.


You asserted that perfect knowledge prevented choice, that angels had perfect knowledge, and that Satan exercised free will. These statements contradict themselves. (I'm not sure if I ever said "prevented".) When I say "forces" and "compells", I don't mean (as my last post made especially clear) that choosing an alternative is impossible. The freedom of the choice is undermined. The devil(s) chooses the alternative out of irrational jealousy and hate. Its an irrational choice, choosing death. It can be made--it's just irrational.


It is semantics to suggest that a person who starts with different facts is wrong instead of lying or stupid? "Starting with different facts" didn't come into this part of our discussion until your last post. Wait... I said I wouldn't be responding to this.

Now to wrap up our tired relationship:

If you think me saying "I made no such acknowledgement [that you atheists do not experience God's revelation]" contradicts me saying "I know God exists from personal experience"...

And if you think me saying "Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong" establishes that anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid...

...then you go ahead and...

declare victory and stop
:wave:

[John A. Broussard]

You must have missed the following, so I'm repeating it for your benefit.

Originally Posted by Copper Scroll
In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense.

JAB: Really?

How do you then account for religions which have no belief in god? Or atheism for that matter? Or agnosticism? Or even Deism, which denies "revelations"?

Please explain how you can make such a totally unfounded generalization?

[alienward]

The part about how, in order to be correct and true, directions to a location must include distance information, but while some distance information is too vague, exact distance measurements are not necessary.
Ok, but since you can’t understand why some distance information is necessary for directions to be accurate enough to find a location, I don’t expect you to have a clue about whatever you think is a religious experience.

What this appears to be indicative of is a very narrow standard for what you regard as a truthful statement.
What is clear from your excuses is that you know claimed religious experiences are completely contradictory.

Double-Ouch!
You hound me about answering a question and then answer one with this?

[Yahzi]

Now, that was a little more responsible on your part.
You castigate me for misquoting you; when I provide the link to your quote, this is all I get? No apology, no retraction, no reconsideration of your argument in light of the demonstrated contradiction, but merely a gold star for doing your homework?

(I'm not sure if I ever said "prevented".) When I say "forces" and "compells", I don't mean (as my last post made especially clear) that choosing an alternative is impossible.
And you accuse me of resorting to semantics?

This is the second time you've used questions to respond
And you complain about me not reading your posts? The specific answer to your question was in the following paragraph.

If you think me saying "I made no such acknowledgement [that you atheists do not experience God's revelation]" contradicts me saying "I know God exists from personal experience"...
That's not what you acknowledged; but I will no longer be citing your own quotes to you to demonstrate to you what you actually said. If you can't be bothered to re-read your own writing, I certainly can't be.

Perhaps you should reconsider this whole internet debating thing. You might do better in formats where your previous claims are forgotten as soon as they are issued.

[Copper Scroll]

Given that you have acknowledged that you only know of God because God gave you a direct experience, and given that you have acknowledged we atheists do not have access to that experience,

I have not acknowledged either of these. Take "only" out of the first statement to correct it. I never said anything like the second statement.

Now, the question you failed to answer was:
"Do you want everybody to be the same and have the same?" I assume your answer is yes. My new question is how far we should go with this? Should we have the same color hair, the same clothes, tastes in music, personality traits, height and weight?"

The specific answer is, I mean equality in the same sense the Declaration of Independence uses it: political and moral equality.
It's not "the specific answer"--it's a non-answer.

You castigate me for misquoting you; when I provide the link to your quote, this is all I get? No apology, no retraction, no reconsideration of your argument in light of the demonstrated contradiction, but merely a gold star for doing your homework? Apologize for what? You falsely characterized my statement: "Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong" does not mean "Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid." Retract what?

And you accuse me of resorting to semantics? You used new terms like "misinformed" in order to draw contrasts between them and terms I'd used and then used these contrasts to falsely characterize something I'd written. Is this the usual path you take to "declaring victory" in these so-called debates? If that's your game, then you win. I don't really care anymore. Don't even bother answering the questions you've left unanswered.

[Copper Scroll]

Even if God's intervention does become a crutch, is it better to destroy the child? If we are free to choose good and we require God's intervention to choose good all the time, we have ceased being free, ceased being who we are, ceased being. I would argue that a "crutch" for a child who is free to walk on his own would destroy the child who is free to walk on his own.


So God can't help someone "get the hang of it?" How powerful is your God really if he can't teach a basic concept to his creation? There is no such thing as "getting the hang of" righteousness. This is what I was saying. God has taught us the basic concept of righteousness. No one really "gets the hang of" applying it, because there's too many different situations and dilemmas presented in life. It's part of the reason why you see some many "men of God" disgrace themselves. (Let's assume they are not corrupt from the start; let's assume that they start off with the most righteous intentions.) People are easily led astray. That's why I think it's so important for us to be mindful of the potential repercussions of our thoughts and actions--why I consider these a part of a person's essence.


How about some basic contradictions:
I think your list is valid, but I'm afraid it's not what I had in mind when I asked for an example. Pick any one of those contradictions in any one of those items on your list and I'll try to answer your question, which was
How are we supposed to know God's will if everything is contradictory?

People have also testified of being abducted by UFO's, traveling back in time, and seeing Elvis alive. And other people are free to believe them or not.

[John A. Broussard]

If we are free to choose good and we require God's intervention to choose good all the time, we have ceased being free, ceased being who we are, ceased being.
A perfect description of the Christian heaven.

[Yahzi]

It's not "the specific answer"--it's a non-answer.
Citing that I intend the meaning of the word as it is used in the Declaration of Independence is a non-answer?

Apologize for what? You falsely characterized my statement: "Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong" does not mean "Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid." Retract what?
You seem to deal with contradictions by simply ignoring them.

You used new terms like "misinformed" in order to draw contrasts between them and terms I'd used and then used these contrasts to falsely characterize something I'd written.
I'm sorry, did I introduce a new concept into your pre-prepared speil?

I don't really care anymore.
Then why are you here?

[Yahzi]

A perfect description of the Christian heaven.
Exactly. As I have often said, all theology is about learning to embrace death.

[AZSuperman]

If we are free to choose good and we require God's intervention to choose good all the time, we have ceased being free, ceased being who we are, ceased being.
Which matches your own definition of "Eternal Life" quite nicely.

There is no such thing as "getting the hang of" righteousness. This is what I was saying. God has taught us the basic concept of righteousness. No one really "gets the hang of" applying it, because there's too many different situations and dilemmas presented in life.
This only goes to show how powerful your God ISN'T, because of the things he can't teach.

People are easily led astray. That's why I think it's so important for us to be mindful of the potential repercussions of our thoughts and actions--why I consider these a part of a person's essence.
You are the only person I have ever met who believes the action of the dominoes falling down after you push one is a part of anyone's "essence."

I think your list is valid, but I'm afraid it's not what I had in mind when I asked for an example. Pick any one of those contradictions in any one of those items on your list and I'll try to answer your question.


Bible: Jesus was crucified. (Mark 15:25-32) vs. Koran: Jesus was not crucified. (Surah 4:157-158)
Bible: God loves us even though we sin. (Romans 5:8) vs. Koran: God does not love sinners. (Surah 2:190)
Bible: Husbands to love wife as themselves. (Eph. 5:25-28) vs. Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)
Bible: Jesus born in Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:1, 8) vs. Book of Mormon: Jesus born in Jerusalem. (Alma 7:10)
Bible: After the death of Jesus there was three hours of darkness. (Luke 23:44) vs. Book of Mormon: After the death of Jesus there was three days of darkness. (Helaman 14:17-27)
Bible: Children do sin. (Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23) vs. Book of Mormon: Children cannot sin. (Moroni 8:8)

Since all three are considered "revelation from God" they should all agree.

And other people are free to believe them or not.
Since you haven't been able to provide any more evidence than the UFO abductees, why should we believe you?

[AZSuperman]

Apologize for what? You falsely characterized my statement: "Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong" does not mean "Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid."
What about issues which are not so clear cut? When someone disagrees with you are they still "unethical, irrational, and/or stupid?"

[Copper Scroll]

I wonder if you believe in the Christian heaven.

Will everyone be the same there?. I don't know.

[Copper Scroll]

Did the Polynesians know God's will before the Christian missionaries arrived and told them what it was?
I don't know. I imagine they had some sense of it. I think it is probably difficult to do anything productive, including having a society, without some sense of responsibility for others and for the world. The missionaries brought a Christian religion, not God's will.

What about the cannibals of Borneo? I don't know enough about these cannibals.

Does a child brought up by wild dogs know God's will?
I don't know. I wasn't brought up by wild dogs.

Where does this leave your argument? You tell me. What was the point of the questions?

[Copper Scroll]

Really?

How do you then account for religions which have no belief in god? Or atheism for that matter? Or agnosticism? Or even Deism, which denies "revelations"?

Please explain how you can make such a totally unfounded generalization?
God's will is for the material world and the conscious agents within it to be sustained by themselves in perfect peace.

God's will is does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in God's existence or God's revelation.

[Copper Scroll]

It sounds very much like your argument.?
Quite irresponsibly, Clark, you used ellipses in your quotes of my statements to cut off parts where I emphasize repeatedly that "slave" was an analogy of limited applicability in reference to the angels. I even described the limitations of that analogy, but of course this description was cut off and seemingly ignored. Until I get some acknowledgement that my argument has been read in full, I can't really respond.


Simply having perfect knowledge of God's will doesn't force the angels to do God's will, evidenced by the fact it didn't force Satan to follow God's will. I wrote in post 528: "When I say "forces" and "compells", I don't mean that choosing an alternative is impossible. The freedom of the choice is undermined. The devil(s) chooses the alternative out of irrational jealousy and hate. Its an irrational choice, choosing death. It can be made--it's just irrational."

Obviously we CAN have free will, and perfect knowledge of God's will. I wouldn't call it "free" in that case. A choice can still be made, but it would be a crazy one.

[Copper Scroll]

You hound me about answering a question and then answer one with this? Sorry. I thought you were just punching me in the nose. I didn't realize that you were asking a question and punching me in the nose. The question was:
Is this another limitation of your god, in addition to not being able to predict the future, he can’t give people consistent religious experiences? We've been here before. Two people can produce different accounts of the same event. We do know that the accounts of religious experiences have varied, not necessarily that the experiences themselves have varied. Further, I understand that God is revealed to different people (in different places and times) for different reasons. This can also lead to what you would call "inconsistencies".

[alienward]

Jesus – “I am God. Somebody please write that down – in about 30 years, cause I can’t write.�

Muhammad – “God told me he is completely monotheistic, not “mostly monotheistic�, and Jesus is just a regular human.�

Joseph Smith – “God told me he is a human male made out of flesh and bones but he doesn’t have any blood. He says he runs on some kind of spirit juice instead. And he said Jesus is a separate God. Oh ya, he also said he has a wife.�


Copper Scroll – “There’s nothing inconsistent there. It’s just God revealing himself to different people (in different places and times) for different reasons.�

[Copper Scroll]

Which matches your own definition of "Eternal Life" quite nicely. How? I've described eternal life this way: "God's plan is for the material world and the conscious agents within it to be sustained by themselves in perfect peace."


This only goes to show how powerful your God ISN'T, because of the things he can't teach. I don't follow. What can't God teach?

Before I address your question about the contradictions, I'd like to repeat "that our worldview (meaning the worldview of our culture in current times) and the conditions under which we communicate (rationally) and understand the concept of "truth" have certain fundamental differences with those of the culture that produced the biblical texts. The orientation that produced the Bible didn't see contradictions where we see them, I would argue. Our orientation is much more empirical and fact-based. Many of the ideas that have contributed to the making of our current orientation didn't even exist during ancient times. So in order to communicate rationally here during these modern times and within our current culture, I believe, that it is ultimately necessary to contradict certain statements made in the Bible. In my opinion, the invisible differences between our paradigms or discourses (borrowing Kuhn and Foucault) is the reason why many atheists here feel that the Bible cannot be rationally defended." No one has commented on this paragraph yet. I would be interested in feedback.


Bible: Jesus was crucified. (Mark 15:25-32) vs. Koran: Jesus was not crucified. (Surah 4:157-158) It appears that the writers of the Quran, whether this came directly from Muhammad or not, took the crucifixion to be a lie. I understand that this is one of many differences between the two books in relation to Jesus' status and his life. But since the Quran was written hundreds of years after Jesus' life and the Gospels were written maybe some decades after his life, I would find the Gospels more authoritative on the subject.

Bible: God loves us even though we sin. (Romans 5:8) vs. Koran: God does not love sinners. (Surah 2:190) I've heard that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. The Koran might have expressed the "hate" part differently for the purposes of getting people to be righteous. I'm speculating.

Bible: Husbands to love wife as themselves. (Eph. 5:25-28) vs. Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34) Now, to me, this is a real issue. To my mind, a practice widely accepted during the period and in the culture where the Quran was written was immortalized by being written into this book. This goes against my understanding of virtue as revealed through Jesus and many others. I don't agree with the Koran on this point and believe that it is false to attribute it to God, based on my faith that God wills for this world to move toward an everlasting peace and social equality is central to God's revelation through Jesus; wife-beating is obviously counter to that goal and to that principle.

Bible: Jesus born in Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:1, 8) vs. Book of Mormon: Jesus born in Jerusalem. (Alma 7:10)
Bible: After the death of Jesus there was three hours of darkness. (Luke 23:44) vs. Book of Mormon: After the death of Jesus there was three days of darkness. (Helaman 14:17-27) To me, these points are insignificant. The way a person lives her life and the way a person thinks about Jesus is unaffected by these alternatives.

Bible: Children do sin. (Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23) vs. Book of Mormon: Children cannot sin. (Moroni 8:8) Well, it's obvious that children are capable of doing bad things. I think that the intent of the Mormon text you cite is to state that no one starts off bad--no one starts off doing bad things. In other words, we are not damned from the start.

Since all three are considered "revelation from God" they should all agree.
I disagree for two reasons that I can think of right now: (1) The revelations these texts refer to were given to different people at different times. There was likely different reasons for those revelations, reasons that might affect the content of the revelations. (2) The people who wrote the text, who took it upon themselves to document their experiences or the experiences of others, are flawed. They may (and very likely did) have gotten some things wrong. I don't believe its all or even mostly wrong though, based on these flaws. I can understand why the obvious flaws would cause doubt toward the entire text--why someone who knows that wife-beating is wrong would dismiss the whole Quran--but I don't think this is necessarily the right thing to do. One must take into account that the books were written by men during a time long ago and (for some people) in a place far away. I paragraphy I repeat above indicates many of the problems involved when we approach these ancient texts.

Since you haven't been able to provide any more evidence than the UFO abductees, why should we believe you? Believe me when I say that God exists? To me, it's obvious. You don't have to believe me. I came here to answer the question "What is God?"

What about issues which are not so clear cut? When someone disagrees with you are they still "unethical, irrational, and/or stupid?" No. But I wasn't referring to those situations.

[Copper Scroll]

Copper Scroll – “There’s nothing inconsistent there. It’s just God revealing himself to different people (in different places and times) for different reasons.� Those inconsistencies you refer to, I think, are inconsequential. They don't really affect how a person thinks or acts.

[Copper Scroll]

Citing that I intend the meaning of the word as it is used in the Declaration of Independence is a non-answer? You can't really intend any meaning for any word in a question I ask. I intend meanings for those words.

I'm sorry, did I introduce a new concept into your pre-prepared speil? It couldn't have been pre-prepared, because it was an answer to a question you asked.


Then why are you here? Well... I guess I've worn out my welcome.

[John A. Broussard]

God's will is for the material world and the conscious agents within it to be sustained by themselves in perfect peace.

God's will is does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in God's existence or God's revelation.


Hmm. How do you reconcile the above with your earlier statement:

Originally Posted by Copper Scroll
In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense.

I look forward to your reply.

[John A. Broussard]

Well... I guess I've worn out my welcome.

No, no, no! Please don't go. We need more people like you posting here.

Please reconsider.

Even if you don't make sense, it's still interesting to read your posts.

[John A. Broussard]

"the invisible differences between our paradigms or discourses (borrowing Kuhn and Foucault) is the reason why many atheists here feel that the Bible cannot be rationally defended."
A possible alternate explanation for why many atheists here feel that the bible cannot be rationally defended is that the bible cannot be rationally defended.

[Stephen T-B]

Copper Scroll (just as a reminder) "In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense." (Copper Scroll).

If we know God's will without having to be taught it by priests, why do cannibals eat other human beings? Why did the Polynesians think it perfectly OK to have promiscuous sex with all and sundry, regardless of age?
What does a child brought up by wild dogs "know" about God's will.

I have to say I am puzzled as to why Copper Scroll had a difficulty understanding the question I asked in relation to these three groups.

[el creyente]

Posts 367 and 373, I don't think, are dismissals of the encounter between Jesus and Peter as a parable. They are me speculating. I don't think the encounter really qualifies as a parable at all. My point was that a possibility was that the written account of the encounter itself was not literally true, or it could have been a literally true account of a prediction--a well detailed prediction, but a prediction still. Might the angels not be omniscient? I suppose it's possible, but I have no reason to think that they are not. To me, however, the possibility of anyone possessing certain knowledge of future events and their sequence means that our actions are determined by previous events. This is a stance I cannot take for various reasons. People are free to disagree.
So let me see if I can summarize your position. Something is supported by scripture if it's (1) written in the scriptures AND (2) doesn't violate your personal view and/or experiences. For instance, angel omniscience is (1) written in scripture AND (2) doesn't violate your personal view and/or experiences. Therefore, you say that this is supported by scripture. However, god's foreknowledge of the future is (1) written in the scriptures BUT (2) DOES violate your personal view and/or experiences. Therefore, you say that this isn't supported by scripture. Do I have a correct understanding of this?
"The orientation that produced the Bible didn't see contradictions where we see them, I would argue. Our orientation is much more empirical and fact-based. Many of the ideas that have contributed to the making of our current orientation didn't even exist during ancient times."
When it comes to eternal salvation or eternal damnation I would at least expect that everyone (meaning the world population) be given an equal chance or shot to attain either. However, as I read your explanations, it appears that the orientation that produced the bible had a much better chance in this, and that the current orientation in which we find ourselves now is left twisting in the wind. CS, let me ask you something. Are you using an Apple II computer to access IIDB? I know, it's a stupid question, and I already know the answer, because you're obviously logging onto the interent. But can you see how updates and newer versions of once acceptable computer orientations are issued in order to move forward with the times?
Jesus ushered in a new theology that altered the ancient Hebrew perspective.
So to follow by previous question, I take it that god was something like the Apple I, and this new theology Jesus introduced was something like the Apple II. Where's the iMac god? Where's Jesus OS X? Or, if you will, Bible 98? Holy Spirit XP? Why do Steve Jobs and Bill Gates get it, but god doesn't? Or are we supposed to access the internet with an Apple II?
I have encounter more discomfort with my rejection of certain Christian dogmas in this forum than I expected. I have suspected that part of the reason is because the atheists here are used to arguing their points with more dogmatic Christians than myself. The atheists here want me to accept the Bible in whole and without question so that my argument can be challenged simply by siting contradictions within the Bible and between the Bible and our own social values. Am I wrong? Where am I mistaken here?
It's not discomfort on my part at all. More like disbelief. As mentioned earlier, I was a theist at one time. And during my limited theistic experience (attending 3 different churches 4 times a week for the first 18 years of my life) I noticed that most everyone I encountered during my stay believed in god's foreknowledge of the future, because of what the bible had to say about the subject. If, while assisting in sunday school, I started teaching the kids that god doesn't know anything about the future, well, let's just say I wouldn't have been given the opportunity to leave voluntarily. Also, I don't WANT you to do anything (accepting the bible in whole). It's just that problems develop when you pick certain things and disregard others, as has been argued in this very thread. For instance, disbelieving Noah's flood goes a lot further with many Christians than disbelieving the crucifixion. Why? I still haven't figured that one out. Can't you see the inconsistencies and problems that develop from this type of religious free-for-all?

[el creyente]

It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God.
"Of course god doesn't know anything about the future"
I don't think these are fair representations of my perspective
I'm sorry, come again???

[Yahzi]

You can't really intend any meaning for any word in a question I ask. I intend meanings for those words.
You have totally lost the thread of this conversation. Not that that is surprising, given that you are doing several at once; but I know in advance that when I remind you of the context, and post your own quotes to show that you were wrong, you will not - under any circumstance - post a retraction.

Originally you asked me what I meant by "equal," and I said I meant the same thing the Declaration of Independence meant by that word. Then you complained that was a non-answer.

And there are other cases: when I pointed out that your argument about omniscience, free will, and rebellious angels was contradictory, you complaind that I was incorrect in rephrasing "forced" and "compelled" into "cannot choose." You also forgot the entire point of the argument: if it is possible to choose evil while fully knowing God's will, then the reason God does not tell us his full will cannot be because it would make it impossible for us to choose.

When I pointed out that perfectly rational people could come to perfectly rational conclusions that were different than yours if they started with difference facts, you complained that I was introducing new concepts into your diatribe against the irrational, stupid, liars who disagreed with you.

You have either ignored or fobbed off these comments with non-answers. This is not what constitutes debate.

Well... I guess I've worn out my welcome.
You most certainly have, and you did so by preaching. You do not read our questions, apply their logic to your argument, and attempt to logically resolve the differences; instead, you just throw out assertion after assertion, change your tune whenever it looks like you are painted into a corner, and then complain when we won't just let it go.

The IIDB is for dialogue, not monologue.

[John A. Broussard]

If you are still around, I wonder if you could comment on the following (second posting):

Originally Posted by Copper Scroll
God's will is for the material world and the conscious agents within it to be sustained by themselves in perfect peace.

God's will is does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in God's existence or God's revelation.



Hmm. How do you reconcile the above with your earlier statement:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Copper Scroll
In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense.


I look forward to your reply.

[AZSuperman]

... I emphasize repeatedly that "slave" was an analogy of limited applicability in reference to the angels... "When I say "forces" and "compells", I don't mean that choosing an alternative is impossible...
Gotcha... When you said "slave," you didn't mean slave, when you said "force" you didn't mean force, when you said "compel" you didn't mean compel, and when the Bible said God knows the future, it doesn't mean he really knows the future.

You probably didn't mean it when you refered to the angels as God's "livestock."

How are we supposed to respond when you can't even say what you mean? :huh:

[John A. Broussard]

Gotcha... When you said "slave," you didn't mean slave, when you said "force" you didn't mean force, when you said "compel" you didn't mean compel, and when the Bible said God knows the future, it doesn't mean he really knows the future.

You probably didn't mean it when you refered to the angels as God's "livestock."

How are we supposed to respond when you can't even say what you mean? :huh:

I'm afraid we've been too hard on CS.

Maybe we should make it a rule to not call a theist's attention to more than a half-dozen of his/her contradictions in one day.

Oh, well. There's more where CS came from, I'm sure.

[neozen]

So here is my challange: Define a God.
God is everything and no-thing.

[Copper Scroll]

If we know God's will without having to be taught it by priests, why do cannibals eat other human beings?.
You'll have to ask a cannibal that. Maybe the cannibals do not have knowledge of God's will... or maybe they do have some knowledge of it but fail to see a contradiction between it and their cannibalism. I don't know.

Why did the Polynesians think it perfectly OK to have promiscuous sex with all and sundry, regardless of age? Similar answer to above.

What does a child brought up by wild dogs "know" about God's will. I don't know.

I have to say I am puzzled as to why Copper Scroll had a difficulty understanding the question I asked in relation to these three groups Perhaps because I don't know enough about these three groups to comment.

[Copper Scroll]

So let me see if I can summarize your position. Something is supported by scripture if it's (1) written in the scriptures AND (2) doesn't violate your personal view and/or experiences. For instance, angel omniscience is (1) written in scripture AND (2) doesn't violate your personal view and/or experiences. Therefore, you say that this is supported by scripture. However, god's foreknowledge of the future is (1) written in the scriptures BUT (2) DOES violate your personal view and/or experiences. Therefore, you say that this isn't supported by scripture. Do I have a correct understanding of this? I didn't say God's foreknowledge of the future is not supported by scripture. Much in the Bible does support it.


When it comes to eternal salvation or eternal damnation I would at least expect that everyone (meaning the world population) be given an equal chance or shot to attain either. However, as I read your explanations, it appears that the orientation that produced the bible had a much better chance in this, and that the current orientation in which we find ourselves now is left twisting in the wind.
You raise a very good point here, if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that my argument implies that ancient people had a better chance at eternal salvation because they were capable of understanding the Bible better?

CS, let me ask you something. Are you using an Apple II computer to access IIDB? I know, it's a stupid question, and I already know the answer, because you're obviously logging onto the interent. But can you see how updates and newer versions of once acceptable computer orientations are issued in order to move forward with the times? Yes, but I would argue that not every change in orientation is a good one in every way. Our current paradigm is good for scientific innovation and other aspects of our lives, but I fear that it may be stifling us in other ways (spiritually?). I would advocate us becoming more flexible paradigmically/discursively.

So to follow by previous question, I take it that god was something like the Apple I, and this new theology Jesus introduced was something like the Apple II. Where's the iMac god? Where's Jesus OS X? Or, if you will, Bible 98? Holy Spirit XP? Why do Steve Jobs and Bill Gates get it, but god doesn't? Or are we supposed to access the internet with an Apple II? I don't fully understand. What's on your mind?

It's not discomfort on my part at all. More like disbelief. As mentioned earlier, I was a theist at one time. And during my limited theistic experience (attending 3 different churches 4 times a week for the first 18 years of my life) I noticed that most everyone I encountered during my stay believed in god's foreknowledge of the future, because of what the bible had to say about the subject. If, while assisting in sunday school, I started teaching the kids that god doesn't know anything about the future, well, let's just say I wouldn't have been given the opportunity to leave voluntarily. Also, I don't WANT you to do anything (accepting the bible in whole). It's just that problems develop when you pick certain things and disregard others, as has been argued in this very thread. For instance, disbelieving Noah's flood goes a lot further with many Christians than disbelieving the crucifixion. Why? I still haven't figured that one out. Can't you see the inconsistencies and problems that develop from this type of religious free-for-all? How does a Sunday school teacher deal with the Bible's internal inconsistencies? I suppose she must ask her pastor. By taking a stance with regards to this controversy, is the pastor engaging in a religious free-for-all? I hope not. I hope the pastor has rational and well-informed reasons for whatever stance he takes--so much so that it cannot be fairly called "free-for-all". I think I have rational and informed reasons for taking the stances that I take as well.

[Copper Scroll]

I'm sorry, come again???
By knowing everything that is happening and everything that has happened (and by being omnipotent, as Lamp reminded me), God is in a particularly good position to predict the future. If God bet on a horse, I'd bet on the same horse for sure. God is not completely in the dark about the future. But I don't think anyone can know with full certainty what future events will be.

[Copper Scroll]

I look forward to your reply. I don't see the contradiction. Can you lay it out for me?

[Copper Scroll]

Gotcha... When you said "slave," you didn't mean slave,
Because an analogy can be drawn between two concepts does not mean that those concepts must agree in every way. Is there a problem?

when you said "force" you didn't mean force, when you said "compel" you didn't mean compel,
I will use a new analogy at the risk that you will (try to) take it out of bounds. If someone held a gun to your head and demanded your wallet, would you say that you were being forced or compelled to give up your wallet? I would. Are you capable of choosing an alternative to giving up your wallet?

How are we supposed to respond when you can't even say what you mean? It becomes particularly difficult when you ignore my explanations and clarifications of what I mean. As the only one here who regularly makes actual claims and actually takes a (positive) stand on issues, I feel that I am entitled to clarifying my points and not being taken out of context.

[el creyente]

I'll get back with a response later to your comments concerning my previous post, but first I'd just like to get this cleared up:
It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God.
God is not completely in the dark about the future.
Please tell me that you also see what's wrong here.

[gudanov]

It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God.

Wouldn't this imply that God didn't create the universe? Time is part of the universe.

[AZSuperman]

Because an analogy can be drawn between two concepts does not mean that those concepts must agree in every way. Is there a problem?
Slave is a pretty strong word, please explain how it DOES apply to angels, followed by how it DOESN'T. Just to make sure there are no more misunderstandings in this regard.

I will use a new analogy at the risk that you will (try to) take it out of bounds. If someone held a gun to your head and demanded your wallet, would you say that you were being forced or compelled to give up your wallet? I would. Are you capable of choosing an alternative to giving up your wallet?
This was supposed to clarify your position on the angel/slave issue?

I don't see how this is any different than being a slave. Slaves were generally threatened with physical harm (or death) if they disobeyed. They technically had the ability to disobey, but doing so would lead to a beating from the slave-master.

Just like in your analogy above, angels have the ability to chose to disobey God's will (evidence: Satan). The only reason they don't (to continue using your analogy) is because God is "holding a gun to their head." :devil3:

It becomes particularly difficult when you ignore my explanations and clarifications of what I mean. As the only one here who regularly makes actual claims and actually takes a (positive) stand on issues, I feel that I am entitled to clarifying my points and not being taken out of context.
Your clarifications do little to clarify.

You said "Angels are like slaves" then when that made God look bad, you changed it to "Angels are like livestock." When it was pointed out that you said God forced the Angels to obey, you turned and said you didn't mean force as in "provide no options," you mean force as in someone asking you to do something while holding a gun to your head! :rolling:

You're doing a great job of making God look like a racist monster.

:devil2:

[John A. Broussard]

I don't see the contradiction. Can you lay it out for me?


"God's will is does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in God's existence or God's revelation."

"In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense."

God's will is "in God's revelations" and "God's will does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in...God's revelation."

If you still don't see the contradiction, I'll explain further.

[Copper Scroll]

Slave is a pretty strong word, please explain how it DOES apply to angels, followed by how it DOESN'T.
Angels are like slaves in that they are forced to do God's will. They are entirely unlike slaves in the character and purpose of this coercion. Slaves are forced to do the will of their masters from fear (of physical retribution and having to support themselves in a hostile social environment) and hopelessness (because the larger social orders supports their slavery and they are not likely to get away if they runaway). Angels are forced by their knowledge; they know exactly what God's will is in every instance, specifically what actions to take in accordance with God's will, that acting in accordance with God's will leads to eternal life, and what death is. This full knowledge undermines their freedom. They are still able to choose, but with such full knowledge choosing anything but what actions God wills is irrational. I argued that the devil(s) make this irrational choice out of hate, spite, and jealousy. I also argued that if God was more like a slavemaster, God would pursue the devil(s) and re-"enslave" them. Also, the will of a slavemaster is in his own interest. God's will is in the interest of all Creation. Also, ethically and morally a slave is born equal to his master; for one human being to enslave another is against the most fundamental of our moral principles. Neither we individually nor the angels are born equal to God.

This was supposed to clarify your position on the angel/slave issue? The purpose of the second analogy (which contained questions you didn't answer) was to show that I can say one was forced to do something even if choosing an alternative was possible.

You said "Angels are like slaves" then when that made God look bad, you changed it to "Angels are like livestock." I also said that they are like God's appendages. No analogy will fit perfectly (none that I can think of), mainly because there is no relationship like one can have with God, whether one is an angel or one of us. I can only describe my belief and hope it even comes close to the mark. It's easy for others here who don't ever really make claims to point the finger at one of the few who does and say "You're not being clear enough" "You're moving the goalposts" "You're contradicting yourself" --particularly when those claims are made about matters which are almost intrinsically indescribable.

You're doing a great job of making God look like a racist monster. ...if that's how you want to read it. Many thought Malcolm X was a racist monster too. Many thought Jesus was a monster during his time.

[Copper Scroll]

Please tell me that you also see what's wrong here. The word "know" implies a certain high level of certainty--like the level of certainty that one is witnessing an event that is really happening right in front of them. I said that no one can "know" future events because those events have not happened yet; they are not real; they do not exist. How can one be as certain about future events as they are about present events or even past events, if those events have not happened yet?

You might say "But I do have some level of certainty that the stock market will open again tomorrow morning." Sure, but not as high a level of certainty that the stock market opened this morning. Are you completely in the dark about the future? No, because it is very likely that the market will open again tomorrow morning. It is a well founded prediction, based on lots and lots of experience. Well, if we have lots and lots of experience, then God has lots and lots and lots and lots. God knows everything that has happened and is happening. If you and I are not completely in the dark about the future, certainly God isn't either.

[Copper Scroll]

Wouldn't this imply that God didn't create the universe? Time is part of the universe. If one assumes that every event is predetermined, then time (past, present, and future) can be taken as a single totality that God created and is unfolding for us. I don't believe in that assumption though. I don't believe that our actions are predetermined. Events are subject to our choices. Since many of our choices have not yet been made, future events are not fixed.

[Copper Scroll]

"God's will is does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in God's existence or God's revelation."

"In a generic sense, we do know God's will--it's in God's revelations, it's in our ethics, it's in our reason, it's in our common sense."

God's will is "in God's revelations" and "God's will does not necessarily entail people having certain belief in...God's revelation."

If you still don't see the contradiction, I'll explain further. I believe that one can experience a revelation from God and still not believe that God was responsible for the experience. If you say that you've never experienced this sort of revelation, I'll won't argue with you--but you still (with hope) have some ethical, rational, and common sense. I believe God's will (for the material world to be sustained by itself and its conscious agents in perfect peace eternally) is largely bundled up in these "senses"--the validity of which by the way we have no empirical evidence for either.

[el creyente]

Copper Scroll, when asked by a previous poster where you derived the idea that angels are omniscient, you responded by saying that this notion is supported by scripture. Kind of like the old fundy saying "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Now, when it comes to god's foreknowledge of the future, you stated the following:
I didn't say God's foreknowledge of the future is not supported by scripture. Much in the Bible does support it.
Can I then infer from the above that you believe that god does possess foreknowledge of the future from this statement? Similar to your angels being omniscient comment? Well, I guess I can't, because you've also said this:
It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God.
So scripture tells you that angels are omniscient, and you believe this based solely on what scripture tells you. However, scripture tells you that god has foreknowledge of the future but you don't believe this. What's going on here?
You raise a very good point here, if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that my argument implies that ancient people had a better chance at eternal salvation because they were capable of understanding the Bible better?
Is this indeed what you were saying? Is this your position? If so, please let me know because I have further questions/comments.
Yes, but I would argue that not every change in orientation is a good one in every way. Our current paradigm is good for scientific innovation and other aspects of our lives, but I fear that it may be stifling us in other ways (spiritually?). I would advocate us becoming more flexible paradigmically/discursively.
But why can't our current paradigm also support the spiritual, especially a new way that god/jesus could introduce to us presently, kind of like an updated version of an Apple II computer so that we can access the internet.
I don't fully understand. What's on your mind?
See above, coupled with your previous comments of Jesus introducing a new way to people 2000 years ago that, I dare say, must be seriously out of date for today's current paradigm.
How does a Sunday school teacher deal with the Bible's internal inconsistencies? I suppose she must ask her pastor. By taking a stance with regards to this controversy, is the pastor engaging in a religious free-for-all? I hope not. I hope the pastor has rational and well-informed reasons for whatever stance he takes--so much so that it cannot be fairly called "free-for-all". I think I have rational and informed reasons for taking the stances that I take as well.
What does talking about the Sunday school teacher have to do with anything? You claimed that I was showing discomfort in what you had to say. I gave an example, showing you that it's not discomfort, but disbelief. CS, you are the first theist I have ever encountered who said that it's impossible for god to know the future.

[AZSuperman]

Angels are like slaves in that they are forced to do God's will. They are entirely unlike slaves in the character and purpose of this coercion. Slaves are forced to do the will of their masters from fear (of physical retribution and having to support themselves in a hostile social environment) and hopelessness (because the larger social orders supports their slavery and they are not likely to get away if they runaway).
And this is entirely unlike being threatened with an eternity in Hell?
Angels are forced by their knowledge; they know exactly what God's will is in every instance, specifically what actions to take in accordance with God's will, that acting in accordance with God's will leads to eternal life, and what death is.
Again, fear of Hell. Fear of "having to support themselves in a hostile... environment"
This full knowledge undermines their freedom. They are still able to choose, but with such full knowledge choosing anything but what actions God wills is irrational.
Just like not handing over your wallet to the masked gunman is irrational.
I argued that the devil(s) make this irrational choice out of hate, spite, and jealousy.
Or... maybe they were just tired of having a gun heald to their head, maybe they were tired of living in fear. Maybe they decided it was better to have the ability to think for themselves. Maybe they knew God's will and they thought it sucked!
I also argued that if God was more like a slavemaster, God would pursue the devil(s) and re-"enslave" them.
Na, a slave master would generally kill a runaway slave, as an example to the others. Kind of a "This is what will happen to you if you run away." Keeping a runaway slave alive could lead to him insiting others to seek their freedom. No, it served God's purposes BETTER, as an evil slave master, to let the other slaves watch their comrades suffer in eternal torment.
Also, the will of a slavemaster is in his own interest. God's will is in the interest of all Creation.
If God's intereste was in all creation, then he'd be more worried about people doint what is right than he would be about people believing the right garbage. He would've revealed himself better, thereby causing more people to be saved...
Also, ethically and morally a slave is born equal to his master; for one human being to enslave another is against the most fundamental of our moral principles. Neither we individually nor the angels are born equal to God.
The Bible say's we're all Gods... that makes us EQUAL.
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Besides, slave owners didn't consider slaves their equal... just as you don't consider angels our equal. They are all sentient, which means they shouldn't be forced (by any definition) into slavery by God.

The purpose of the second analogy (which contained questions you didn't answer) was to show that I can say one was forced to do something even if choosing an alternative was possible.
Well I don't want to be accused of avoiding questions, so lets see your questions.
If someone held a gun to your head and demanded your wallet, would you say that you were being forced or compelled to give up your wallet? I would. Are you capable of choosing an alternative to giving up your wallet?
Yes, I would say I was being forced or compelled to give up my wallet... I'd even go as far as to say it was the knowledge of how the gun works, and the knowledge of the will of the gunman (Give me your wallet or die), and the knowledge of both the existence of the gun and the gunman which would be limiting the decisions I considered... However, I wouldn't consider the mugger good, and I definately wouldn't worship him.

I also said that they are like God's appendages. No analogy will fit perfectly (none that I can think of), mainly because there is no relationship like one can have with God, whether one is an angel or one of us.
I ignored this analogy because it doesn't match your own views. Angels are sentient, they can make choices of their own (evidence: Satan) your fingers and toes can't.
I can only describe my belief and hope it even comes close to the mark. It's easy for others here who don't ever really make claims to point the finger at one of the few who does and say "You're not being clear enough" "You're moving the goalposts" "You're contradicting yourself" --particularly when those claims are made about matters which are almost intrinsically indescribable.
Ok, I'll make a claim of my own. Angels don't exist. And unless someone can show me otherwise, I'll stick with that claim.

However, if you want to claim angels do exist, we will continue to show you errors in your logic, and we'll point it out when you change your claim.

...if that's how you want to read it.
And how would you describe a being who keeps other sentient creatures in line using fear of torture?
Many thought Malcolm X was a racist monster too. Many thought Jesus was a monster during his time.
Malcolm X never owned and threatened slaves. The gospels don't show anyone thinking Jesus was a monster... a fraud yes, but a monster no.

[el creyente]

The word "know" implies a certain high level of certainty--like the level of certainty that one is witnessing an event that is really happening right in front of them. I said that no one can "know" future events because those events have not happened yet; they are not real; they do not exist. How can one be as certain about future events as they are about present events or even past events, if those events have not happened yet?

You might say "But I do have some level of certainty that the stock market will open again tomorrow morning." Sure, but not as high a level of certainty that the stock market opened this morning. Are you completely in the dark about the future? No, because it is very likely that the market will open again tomorrow morning. It is a well founded prediction, based on lots and lots of experience. Well, if we have lots and lots of experience, then God has lots and lots and lots and lots. God knows everything that has happened and is happening. If you and I are not completely in the dark about the future, certainly God isn't either.
Your examples continue to fall short with me. Please read the following three statements, which are something along the lines of what god may say:

God: I know the stock market will open tomorrow.
God: I know the sun wil rise tomorrow.
God: I know before the cock crows three time that you will deny me.

Now, I myself have stated something comparable to two of them, but the third is way beyond me. Do you see the statement that is different from the other two? Are you seriously saying that god's foreknowledge of the future is comparable to us knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow, only more so? Upon what lots and lots and lots and lots of past experiences is god drawing on when he states that he knows someone will deny him at a particular point in time? When he knows that someone will betray him? When he knows that his only begotten son will be crucified and resurrected to save all of humanity?

[Copper Scroll]

Again, fear of Hell. Fear of "having to support themselves in a hostile... environment". Slaves fear what will probably happen to them if they run away. They know that there is a chance that they may escape and be able to carve out decent lives for themselves. The outcome of running away is not fully certain, but they may fear a negative outcome. Putting this fear aside and deciding to run away is not irrational, it's courageous.

I wouldn't say angels fear. They know fully what the consequences of possible actions are, which actions will contribute to God's will and which won't. Knowing what death is, it would be irrational to choose it. Are we just being obedient when we choose to do what we know is right and rational as opposed to what is wrong and irrational?

Maybe they knew God's will and they thought it sucked! Well, if they think that the self-sustenance of the world in perfect, eternal peace "sucks", then I would call them psychopathic and not put anything past them.

Na, a slave master would generally kill a runaway slave, as an example to the others.
I don't think that it usually happened this way.

If God's intereste was in all creation, then he'd be more worried about people doint what is right than he would be about people believing the right garbage. I agree.

He would've revealed himself better, thereby causing more people to be saved... What's your standard for a "good" revelation?

The Bible say's we're all Gods... that makes us EQUAL. That very same verse you quote says we are "children of the most High". There is One higher than us.

Besides, slave owners didn't consider slaves their equal... They were wrong.

just as you don't consider angels our equal. No, I consider them different. Our knowledge is incomplete; theirs isn't. Our will is free; theirs isn't. If our knowledge was like theirs, we'd be like them.

Well I don't want to be accused of avoiding questions, so lets see your questions.

Yes, I would say I was being forced or compelled to give up my wallet...
..even if choosing an alternative is possible. So was I contradicting my self by using the words "force" and "compel"?

I ignored this analogy because it doesn't match your own views. Angels are sentient, they can make choices of their own (evidence: Satan) your fingers and toes can't. Is livestock sentient?

Ok, I'll make a claim of my own. Angels don't exist. And unless someone can show me otherwise, I'll stick with that claim. This is a very safe claim that you have chosen to make--a negative one--no burden of proof. I can claim that you are not a conscious agent and insist that you show me otherwise if you want me to believe otherwise. But I won't.

However, if you want to claim angels do exist, we will continue to show you errors in your logic, and we'll point it out when you change your claim. Thank you.

The gospels don't show anyone thinking Jesus was a monster... a fraud yes, but a monster no
"When the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow [Jesus] drives out demons." (Matthew 12:24) Consorting with a "prince of demons", I think, goes a little beyond fraud.

[Copper Scroll]

So scripture tells you that angels are omniscient, and you believe this based solely on what scripture tells you.
I have no reason to believe that angels are not all-knowing.

However, scripture tells you that god has foreknowledge of the future but you don't believe this. What's going on here? I have reason to believe that no one can have full and certain knowledge of future events.

Is this indeed what you were saying? Is this your position? If so, please let me know because I have further questions/comments. I don't think that ancient people necessarily had a better shot at eternal life than us.

But why can't our current paradigm also support the spiritual, especially a new way that god/jesus could introduce to us presently, kind of like an updated version of an Apple II computer so that we can access the internet. So what you are asking for is a new great revelation that is easier to understand and conforms more to our current paradigm and discourse? I don't have an answer for this question. It could happen. I do believe the revelations we have to work with are sufficient. I was just arguing that we must approach the Bible mindful of the fact that great shifts in paradigm and discourse have occurred since the Bible was written and compiled.

See above, coupled with your previous comments of Jesus introducing a new way to people 2000 years ago that, I dare say, must be seriously out of date for today's current paradigm. Not so "seriously" that its completely incomprehensible and inaccessible.

What does talking about the Sunday school teacher have to do with anything? You claimed that I was showing discomfort in what you had to say. I gave an example, showing you that it's not discomfort, but disbelief. I acknowledge your argument about disbelieving instead of being discomforted. I won't argue; you know way better than I do about how you feel. But this argument seems well-connected to your claims that I "cherry-pick" my way through the Bible and that I engage in "religious free-for-all". I was comparing what I do theologically with what anyone does theologically.

CS, you are the first theist I have ever encountered who said that it's impossible for god to know the future. That's fine. I do feel that determinism a weak spot in many brands of theism. People tend to feel that if everything is predetermined, their actions don't really matter--if not on a conscious level, then often on a subconscious level.

If we take into account how equipped God is to predict the future, there might not appear to be that much of a difference between me and the other theists you've encountered.

[Copper Scroll]

Your examples continue to fall short with me. Please read the following three statements, which are something along the lines of what god may say:

God: I know the stock market will open tomorrow.
God: I know the sun wil rise tomorrow.
God: I know before the cock crows three time that you will deny me.

Now, I myself have stated something comparable to two of them, but the third is way beyond me. Do you see the statement that is different from the other two? Are you seriously saying that god's foreknowledge of the future is comparable to us knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow, only more so? Upon what lots and lots and lots and lots of past experiences is god drawing on when he states that he knows someone will deny him at a particular point in time? When he knows that someone will betray him? When he knows that his only begotten son will be crucified and resurrected to save all of humanity? This all goes back to our original discussion about the scripture you're referring to in the third statement. Please answer the comments I've already made on this issue.

[AZSuperman]

Slaves fear what will probably happen to them if they run away. They know that there is a chance that they may escape and be able to carve out decent lives for themselves. The outcome of running away is not fully certain, but they may fear a negative outcome. Putting this fear aside and deciding to run away is not irrational, it's courageous.
So living with no hope is better? That's what the angels have, no hope of living on their own... no hope of making their own choices... no hope of anything.

I wouldn't say angels fear. They know fully what the consequences of possible actions are, which actions will contribute to God's will and which won't.
So you wouldn't be afraid if someone held a gun to your head? You know full well what the gun will do if he pulls the trigger. And you know he will pull the trigger if you don't do what he says (especially if he shot the last guy who didn't do what he said...Satan) You wouldn't be afraid? It doesn't matter what you're being forced to do... he could hold a gun to your head and force you to "sell all you have and give it to the poor," you'd still be looking over your shoulder, frightened.
Knowing what death is, it would be irrational to choose it. Are we just being obedient when we choose to do what we know is right and rational as opposed to what is wrong and irrational?
There's the key... we choose to do what we feel is right and rational. The angels don't have the option to choose... They're forced, or strongly advised to do God's will, or suffer eternal torture.

Well, if they think that the self-sustenance of the world in perfect, eternal peace "sucks", then I would call them psychopathic and not put anything past them.
This is only your opinion of what God's plan is. Most people believe the Earth will be destroyed and the end game will have all the souls divided into two camps, Heaven and Hell... you go off this idea quite a bit, but you don't explain why or how you came to this conclusion.

As I pointed out before, eternal peace could still include death from natural diseasters, animal attacks, disease, cancer, etc... the only variable removed is humans killing humans.


I don't think that it usually happened this way.
You don't think slave owners hunted down and killed runaway slaves? Come on... plantation owners had hundreds of slaves, if one ran away and wasn't caught, he provided hope for the others... so he couldn't let them live freely, he had to try to recapture him. Then when the slave was back in his control, he would generally take him back and beat him to death in front of the other slaves. If the slave was allowed to live, he could become an insurgent, causing other slaves to rebel and possibly run away. It was better to lose one, and use him as an example, then to have the slaves band together in an attempt to earn their freedom.

Am I saying it always happened that way? No. It varied depending on how many slaves the slave owner had, and what his personal feeling towards the slaves was. But it happened quite frequently.

What's your standard for a "good" revelation?
Non-contradictory, verifiable revelation.

That very same verse you quote says we are "children of the most High". There is One higher than us.
Are you less human than your parents?

Besides, slave owners didn't consider slaves their equal...
They were wrong.
That's not in dispute.

No, I consider them different. Our knowledge is incomplete; theirs isn't. Our will is free; theirs isn't. If our knowledge was like theirs, we'd be like them.
In otherwords, if we could see the gun pointed at our heads we'd be less likely to make a choice that would result in our being shot. God threatens the angels, "Comply or Die!" then gives us the same options, but doesn't let us know what we're supposed to comply with?

..even if choosing an alternative is possible. So was I contradicting my self by using the words "force" and "compel"?
When you used those words, no... but when you later said (several times) that the angels were unable to do anything other than God's will, you changed the meaning to "remove all other options."

Is livestock sentient?
That depends on your definition of the word.
If you use it to mean basic consciousness, then yes. But if you use it (as I was) to connotate knowledge, self-awareness, higher consciousness, or appreciation... then no.

This is a very safe claim that you have chosen to make--a negative one--no burden of proof. I can claim that you are not a conscious agent and insist that you show me otherwise if you want me to believe otherwise. But I won't.
Easy to disprove. It depends on the level of verification you would prefer. You can find a picture of my at www.azreimentor.com (http://www.azreimentor.com), if you'd prefer to talk with me, I can give you my home number. If you'd rather see me and hear me, let me know your AIM screenname, or your MSN screenname, etc. and I can pipe in a video from my web cam. If you'd rather meet me in person let me know next time you're in Phoenix and we'll meet for drinks!

"When the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow [Jesus] drives out demons." (Matthew 12:24)
Look at that... A verse I had forgotten about! I stand corrected.

[John A. Broussard]

The point is that pain provides for us a free choice, and not having empirical evidence of God or God's will keeps the freedom of the choice from being compromised.

(Now, you'll probably say I didn't answer one of your questions by posing a new one or by really asking me to elaborate. It's cool. I like this discussion.)
I'm pleased that you are pleased.

A friend of mine died recently from cancer. He suffered incredible pain from it during the past five to six months when he could do nothing but lie in bed. That was in spite of the regular doses of opiates.

In talking to the doctor, I discovered that my friend's condition is not uncommon. It made me wonder about how all the others who don't even have the comfort of morphine felt about their suffering.

Since you say that, "the point is that pain provides for us a free choice," I wonder if you could give me the arguments I should have provided to my friend and others like him so that they will know that their pain provides them with a free choice.

I look forward to your answer.

[John A. Broussard]

I believe that one can experience a revelation from God and still not believe that God was responsible for the experience.

Amazing. You grovel before a strange god indeed. One who sends out anonymous messages.

[Copper Scroll]

So living with no hope is better? That's what the angels have, no hope of living on their own... no hope of making their own choices... no hope of anything.
No hope? They have eternity.

So you wouldn't be afraid if someone held a gun to your head?
God is not holding a gun to anyone's head. God has a plan for the world to live in peace eternally. What stands in the way of this plan perishes.

This is only your opinion of what God's plan is. Most people believe the Earth will be destroyed and the end game will have all the souls divided into two camps, Heaven and Hell... you go off this idea quite a bit, but you don't explain why or how you came to this conclusion. The idea that the Kingdom of God is established in this world is supported by scripture. Hell is death.




Are you less human than your parents? Less human? I wouldn't say that. But when I was a child, my parents made decisions that, in effect, controlled my life. We are not equals. Was I their slave? No, I am their child.

God threatens the angels, "Comply or Die!" then gives us the same options, but doesn't let us know what we're supposed to comply with? Before you were saying that my theology places us in a better position than the angels. Now, you imply that the angels are in a better position.

There is no threat. We all have sense--rational, ethical, and common. We must use the tools that we have to put aside the temptations and distractions that would divert us from the righteous path. That is our purpose in life, because once we have completely put sin and temptation aside we attain peace.

That depends on your definition of the word.
If you use it to mean basic consciousness, then yes. But if you use it (as I was) to connotate knowledge, self-awareness, higher consciousness, or appreciation... then no. How do we know that animals (other than ourselves) are not self-aware?
Non-contradictory, verifiable revelation.
Easy to disprove. It depends on the level of verification you would prefer. Does each person choose a suitable level of verification subjectively?

If you'd rather meet me in person let me know next time you're in Phoenix and we'll meet for drinks! I'll take that as an invitation. Thanks, but I don't plan to be out there anytime soon. Barring anything beyond computer mediated communication, proving your consciousness could be difficult.

[Copper Scroll]

Since you say that, "the point is that pain provides for us a free choice," I wonder if you could give me the arguments I should have provided to my friend and others like him so that they will know that their pain provides them with a free choice In the same post you quoted, I wrote: "If God intervened to prevent suffering, we would not be free... The function of pain in the human body is to motivate the human to do something it needs to do in order to alleviate it. Taking this action often prevents people from dying."

Unfortunately, it doesn't always prevent people from dying. I am sorry for your friend. With the continued work of many in the medical professions, we may one day have found cures for cancers. Our empathy for those who suffer drives us closer toward that goal.

Some forms of suffering are certainly worse than others. But as long as there is any suffering, there is too much. So, no matter how much God intervenes to prevent suffering, that intervention will not be enough to eliminate it. If God intervenes to eliminate it, then what is our purpose in life?

[AZSuperman]

No hope? They have eternity.
An eternity of forced servitude, with no hope of ever having the rights to make their own choices.


God is not holding a gun to anyone's head. God has a plan for the world to live in peace eternally. What stands in the way of this plan perishes.
"Do things my way, or perish!" Doesn't that sound like a threat to you?

The idea that the Kingdom of God is established in this world is supported by scripture. Hell is death.
Hell as a firey place of eternal torment is also supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. God's omniscience is supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. The earth being physically destroyed is supported by scripture, but you don't believe it either... you seem to be falling back on your Bible-al-e-carte method again, so I'll repeat my request. Will you please let us know which parts of the Bible you accept as true and which parts you reject as false, or as a parable. It would help if you provided an objective method for us to use to determine which parts you believe.

So far it continues to appear as if you believe the parts you believe because they agree with what you already decided to believe. (Of course, finding these parts in the Bible was probably rather exciting, and most likely lead to a "personal revelation" about their validity.)

Less human? I wouldn't say that. But when I was a child, my parents made decisions that, in effect, controlled my life.
Something God seems rather reluctant to do.
We are not equals. Was I their slave? No, I am their child.
You're not an equal to your parents? You're not entitled to the same freedoms, the same rights, the same privledges? Sure, they helped raise you, but you're full grown now, you have all the same rights and privledges they do.

Which means, if we are "gods," as the Bible says, then we are equal to God. We are his children, but we will eventually (or have already) grown up and are entitled to the same rights he is. Either way, God isn't entitled to make us "perish" if we don't fit his ideal, anymore than a dissappointed parent has the right to kill their son because he didn't decide to become a doctor.

Before you were saying that my theology places us in a better position than the angels. Now, you imply that the angels are in a better position.
It depends on how you look at it. You've stated that angels and humans share the same fate if they dissobey. The evil slave master will destroy them. In that scenario, if survival is the goal, it's better to know the slave master exists... and knowing what he wants is helpful too.

Imagine a slave master sitting on top of a tall tower with a sniper rifle. Everytime a slave does something wrong he shoots him... but not right away, he waits until the end of the day when that slave retires to bed. The other slaves can't see the slave master, nor do they know what he wants them to do... all but a few would perish. This is the picture you have painted of your God. He wants us to obey, he threatens us with annilation if we dissobey, but he won't tell us what he wants us to do or prove he can carry out his threat.

There is no threat.
What stands in the way of this plan perishes. Oh wait, I forgot total annilation for the slightest offense isn't a threat.

We all have sense--rational, ethical, and common.
As pointed out in several previous posts, ethics are not universal, they vary depending on the society in which you live.

We must use the tools that we have to put aside the temptations and distractions that would divert us from the righteous path. That is our purpose in life, because once we have completely put sin and temptation aside we attain peace.
Sin is an invention made to make you feel guilty about actions you can't undo. I agree that we all need to try to do what is best for ourselves, our community, and our environment; but we need to do it for our benefit benefit, and the benefit of future generations... not because we're being threatened by some invisible man in the sky.


We don't. That is one of the reasons I asked if your "perfect world" extended to animals. Of course if it does, and animals are self-aware, then animals are capable of sin, and they would need to "put sin and tempation aside" before we could create the "perfect" world you talk of.

But since I doubt you have any plans to preach to dogs, cats, cows, and cougars... I'm sure you'll concede that they are not self-aware. (If not, then you will need to explain how we're going to get them inline with God's will... killing, incest, and cannibalism is rampant in the animals kingdom.)

[quote]Does each person choose a suitable level of verification subjectively?
Of course, always! To some people, the fact that the earth looks flat from their perspective is prove that it IS flat... others dig deeper and discover that the earth is actually round.

I'll take that as an invitation. Thanks, but I don't plan to be out there anytime soon. Barring anything beyond computer mediated communication, proving your consciousness could be difficult.
Unlike God, I'm open to any computer mediated (or telephone mediated, or USPS mediated) communication required to prove to you that I'm real.

[John A. Broussard]

So, no matter how much God intervenes to prevent suffering, that intervention will not be enough to eliminate it. If God intervenes to eliminate it, then what is our purpose in life?
So, now you are saying that suffering is our purpose in life?

Please explain this very unusual interpretation of god's intentions for human beings.

Thank you.

[John A. Broussard]

Hell as a firey place of eternal torment is also supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. God's omniscience is supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. The earth being physically destroyed is supported by scripture, but you don't believe it either... you seem to be falling back on your Bible-al-e-carte method again, so I'll repeat my request. Will you please let us know which parts of the Bible you accept as true and which parts you reject as false, or as a parable. It would help if you provided an objective method for us to use to determine which parts you believe.

Too bad! That's a dead end.

I've asked CS that, and he simply skirts around the issue. Apparently the rule is, if CS agrees with the passage, it's literally true. If he/she doesn't, then it's to be interpreted metaphorically.

I'm just guessing, of course, since I never did get a straight answer to the question.

[AZSuperman]

Too bad! That's a dead end.

I've asked CS that, and he simply skirts around the issue. Apparently the rule is, if CS agrees with the passage, it's literally true. If he/she doesn't, then it's to be interpreted metaphorically.

I'm just guessing, of course, since I never did get a straight answer to the question.
I'm thinking that CS already has an idea in his head. When he finds a verse which supports it, he gets a "revelation" (probably in the form a warm fuzzy feeling) that this verse is true. Verses which disagree with his preconceived notions don't give him the warm feeling, so they're not accepted.

It's an easy way to make your religion conform to your beliefs, instead of the other way around.

[Barefoot Bree]

Comments are getting a wee bit personal. Let's let CS speak for himself, mmmkay?

[Copper Scroll]

"Do things my way, or perish!" Doesn't that sound like a threat to you?. Depends on who it's coming from. If it's coming from my supervisor at work, I think it's a threat. If it's coming from God, I think it's a warning. But God might also say "Do things my way and you will live eternally." The only alternative to eternal life is eventual death.

Hell as a firey place of eternal torment is also supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. There is much in the Bible that should not be taken literally.

God's omniscience is supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. I do.

The earth being physically destroyed is supported by scripture, but you don't believe it either... you seem to be falling back on your Bible-al-e-carte method again, so I'll repeat my request. Will you please let us know which parts of the Bible you accept as true and which parts you reject as false, or as a parable. It would help if you provided an objective method for us to use to determine which parts you believe. You repeat your request with no acknowledgement of having read my response to your original request. This I think is irresponsible, but I won't make you go fishing for the post:

"I don't think any texts should be completely ignored, some are just less relevant (to me, to us) than others. Understand that relevance is determined subjectively. If you're asking for an objective method, I am not equipped to provide that other than to say that you should ask yourself after every verse you read, 'Now, what should I think [about situations I regularly face in life] and do ?'. As another poster reminded me, we each do have a personal relationship with God and we each occupy different positions in this world. How to apply the principles in the Bible to one's life is a determination one should make with reason, cognizant of the historical/cultural/personal contexts in which the scriptures were written, and fully conscious of one's own personal situation."

Can I ask you for an objective method of verifying claims? You agree that acceptable levels of verification are determined subjectively.
You're not an equal to your parents? You're not entitled to the same freedoms, the same rights, the same privledges? Sure, they helped raise you, but you're full grown now, you have all the same rights and privledges they do. Good point. I'm full grown now. To God, we have not achieved "adulthood"--we remain children to God. I conceive the kingdom of God as achieving this sort of "adulthood", in that righteousness becomes our nature the same way responsibility is the nature of an adult--what makes her not a child. So, we are not equal with God; we have not "grown up".

Either way, God isn't entitled to make us "perish" if we don't fit his ideal, anymore than a dissappointed parent has the right to kill their son because he didn't decide to become a doctor. The good parent of an adolescent will say that her child deserves (has the right to) certain freedoms. As the adolescent exercises those freedoms, the parent cannot rightfully control her. She can only hope that the adolescent is following her advice and minding her admonitions.

This is the picture you have painted of your God. He wants us to obey, he threatens us with annilation if we dissobey, but he won't tell us what he wants us to do or prove he can carry out his threat. I reject your interpretation of what I've written, for the same reasons I've noted before. We're not getting anywhere.

[i]What stands in the way of this plan perishes. Oh wait, I forgot total annilation for the slightest offense isn't a threat. I don't believe in total annihilation for the slightest offense.


As pointed out in several previous posts, ethics are not universal, they vary depending on the society in which you live. When I say "our" ethics, I mean those practiced in our culture. Ethics do vary from subculture to subculture and from one household to the next, but they share a common core--respect for the rights one another as equals and treating others how we would have others treat us. Disagreements arise between who qualifies as "one of us", when and to what extent, what those rights are and what kind of treatment we should accept. I would argue that the proper outcome of these debates should be arrived at by using reason and common sense.

Sin is an invention made to make you feel guilty about actions you can't undo. You imply that a person should not feel guilty about the wrongs they have done. Should they just say "Fuck it"?

I agree that we all need to try to do what is best for ourselves, our community, and our environment; but we need to do it for our benefit benefit, and the benefit of future generations... I assume that the "us" in "our" is everyone in the world. Who else would benefit besides "us"?

Now, someone else might mean her family and her house when she says "ourselves, our community, and our environment". What do you suggest would help her to look beyond her own immediate interests, and those of her family, to the interest of everyone in the world?

not because we're being threatened by some invisible man in the sky. I agree.


But since I doubt you have any plans to preach to dogs, cats, cows, and cougars... I guess I'm too busy working on people like you. (It's a joke.)

I'm sure you'll concede that they are not self-aware. I don't know. My point in asking was to highlight the fact that if animals are self-aware then we do enslave, murder, and exploit them. If you and I agree that we don't know whether they are self-aware or not, how do we justify our treatment of them?

(If not, then you will need to explain how we're going to get them inline with God's will... killing, incest, and cannibalism is rampant in the animals kingdom.) And what is ethical varies from culture to culture and era to era.

Unlike God, I'm open to any computer mediated (or telephone mediated, or USPS mediated) communication required to prove to you that I'm real because if I decided that you are not real, it would bother you and you would feel obligated to prove yourself. God, I don't think, practices the same type of egoism we commonly practice.

[AZSuperman]

Depends on who it's coming from. If it's coming from my supervisor at work, I think it's a threat. If it's coming from God, I think it's a warning. But God might also say "Do things my way and you will live eternally." The only alternative to eternal life is eventual death.
If your supervisor at work said "Do things this way and I'll let you keep your job." It would still be considered a threat. You're playing with words again... (I don't want to get into another force doesn't mean force discussion.) ...If it's a threat when your supervisor says it, then it's a threat when God says it.

There is much in the Bible that should not be taken literally.
As you've said... and I've always asked for an objective method to determine what is literal, what is fictional, what should be followed, and what should be ignored. You have always responded with: "Understand that relevance is determined subjectively. If you're asking for an objective method, I am not equipped to provide that other than to say that you should ask yourself after every verse you read, 'Now, what should I think [about situations I regularly face in life] and do [in those situations]?'

Which boils down to accepting the parts you agree with, interpreting parts as a parable if you like the moral but think the story is too improbable to be real, and throwing away the rest.

God's omniscience is supported by scripture, but you don't believe that. I do.
Word games again... I forgot you have your own definition of omniscience. I should've said the fact that God knows the future is supported by scripture, but you don't believe it.

Can I ask you for an objective method of verifying claims? You agree that acceptable levels of verification are determined subjectively.
Deciding whether or not you've received enough evidence is subjective, yes. But the methods can be objective. For example, for most people, seeing my posts here is proof that I am a living person... you wanted more evidence. I provided a picture of me on the web, if that was unsatisfactory, then I offered to talk with you by phone, if that also was unsatisfactory I offered to meet you through a web cam, and if that also wasn't acceptable I offered to meet you in person. The methods are each objective, straight forward proofs anyone can employ. How much evidence you personally need in order to be satisfied is subective.

So far, the only methods you've offered for determining which verse to accept is basically "read it, see what you agree with."

Good point. I'm full grown now. To God, we have not achieved "adulthood"--we remain children to God. I conceive the kingdom of God as achieving this sort of "adulthood", in that righteousness becomes our nature the same way responsibility is the nature of an adult--what makes her not a child. So, we are not equal with God; we have not "grown up".
Speculation. I can demonstrate that I exist now... until you can demonstrate that our existence continues beyond the grave, it will be very difficult for you to substantiate that an 80 yr old man has not "grown up."

The good parent of an adolescent will say that her child deserves (has the right to) certain freedoms. As the adolescent exercises those freedoms, the parent cannot rightfully control her. She can only hope that the adolescent is following her advice and minding her admonitions.
I noticed the good parent didn't resort to killing their child when they made poor decisions.

I reject your interpretation of what I've written, for the same reasons I've noted before.
You keep saying angels are slaves, but not slaves... they can't make choices because they know too much, but they can make choices it's just illogical... God can't know the future, but he can make plans compensating for future events.

We're not getting anywhere.
I agree, were not getting anywhere. When you run around in circles you don't make much progress.

I don't believe in total annihilation for the slightest offense.
But the slightest offense would go against the will of God (since he wants us all to just get along). If God won't allow anything which goes against his will to survive, then he will destroy you for any offense, no matter how slight.


When I say "our" ethics, I mean those practiced in our culture.You menthoded ethics as one of our methods of knowing God's will. Are you saying God's will changes from one culture to another?

Ethics do vary from subculture to subculture and from one household to the next, but they share a common core--respect for the rights one another as equals and treating others how we would have others treat us.For the most part yes... there are cultures which practice scarification on their children... they don't do it because they want to be cut themselves, but because they want to appease the gods.

Disagreements arise between who qualifies as "one of us", when and to what extent, what those rights are and what kind of treatment we should accept.And when one culture tries to push their ethics, their values, and their morals on another.

I would argue that the proper outcome of these debates should be arrived at by using reason and common sense.Unfortunately, differing cultures usually have different facts on which they base their reason, and different environments create differences in common sense.

You imply that a person should not feel guilty about the wrongs they have done. Should they just say "Fuck it"?
They shouldn't dwell on it forever. If they can right the wrong, then great, if not then they need to eventually move on. It doesn't benefit anyone for a religious person to brow beat them, or convince them to brow beat themselves.

I assume that the "us" in "our" is everyone in the world. Who else would benefit besides "us"?
Yes, when I talk about "us" I am referring to my family, my friends, my community, my country, and my world... in that order.

Now, someone else might mean her family and her house when she says "ourselves, our community, and our environment". What do you suggest would help her to look beyond her own immediate interests, and those of her family, to the interest of everyone in the world?
Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else.

But since I doubt you have any plans to preach to dogs, cats, cows, and cougars... I guess I'm too busy working on people like you. (It's a joke.) :rolling:

I don't know. My point in asking was to highlight the fact that if animals are self-aware then we do enslave, murder, and exploit them. If you and I agree that we don't know whether they are self-aware or not, how do we justify our treatment of them?
I'll say "God did it first!"

And what is ethical varies from culture to culture and era to era.Exactly. Since ethics vary, and morals vary, and you said ethics and morals are the tools we use to determine God's will... this creates a problem.

Either God is giving conflicting commands. (Maybe he likes war?) Or ethics and morals are developed naturally according to the society and the environment in which you live... and no God is needed.

because if I decided that you are not real, it would bother you and you would feel obligated to prove yourself. God, I don't think, practices the same type of egoism we commonly practice.
:rolling:
It doesn't bother me at all if you decide I don't exist! I was merely pointing out that my existence CAN be proven, whereas God's can not.

[Copper Scroll]

As you've said... and I've always asked for an objective method to determine what is literal, what is fictional, what should be followed, and what should be ignored. You have always responded with: "Understand that relevance is determined subjectively. If you're asking for an objective method, I am not equipped to provide that other than to say that you should ask yourself after every verse you read, 'Now, what should I think [about situations I regularly face in life] and do [in those situations]?'

Which boils down to accepting the parts you agree with, interpreting parts as a parable if you like the moral but think the story is too improbable to be real, and throwing away the rest. How does it boil down to that? Please explain.

Speculation. Scripture constantly refers to us as God's children. The concept of a humble child is constantly applied to a righteous person. That we are children in God's eyes, that God is higher than us, is basic tenet of every theistic religion I've heard of. How can this be written off simply as speculation?


I noticed the good parent didn't resort to killing their child when they made poor decisions. But if an adolescent does something that gets her killed, do you blame the parent for giving the adolescent her freedom?

I think much of our disagreement is owed to you holding God responsible for death. If God wants to allow us to create and guide us in creating a perfect world and certain things and persons--thoughts and actions--must be eliminated to achieve that goal, I don't mind.

You keep saying angels are slaves, but not slaves...
No, you keep saying that I keep saying angels are slaves, when the truth is that I said angels are like slaves one time.

they can't make choices because they know too much, but they can make choices it's just illogical...
I don't think I ever said they can't make choices.

God can't know the future, but he can make plans compensating for future events.
What does this mean?

But the slightest offense would go against the will of God (since he wants us all to just get along). If God won't allow anything which goes against his will to survive, then he will destroy you for any offense, no matter how slight. I also said that thoughts and actions in accordance with God's will achieve eternity. Now, what if a person does a bad thing one day and a good thing the next? Do you think that I would say "God will destroy her"? If so, what have I said that would lead you to this conclusion?


You menthoded ethics as one of our methods of knowing God's will. Are you saying God's will changes from one culture to another? It probably does. Two different cultures start from two different points but have the same destination. The directions to that destination will vary between the two cultures.

Unfortunately, differing cultures usually have different facts on which they base their reason, and different environments create differences in common sense. I agree, but don't agree that it's unfortunate.


They shouldn't dwell on it forever. If they can right the wrong, then great, if not then they need to eventually move on. It doesn't benefit anyone for a religious person to brow beat them, or convince them to brow beat themselves. That's why God forgives and people should also forgive themselves and others.


Yes, when I talk about "us" I am referring to my family, my friends, my community, my country, and my world... in that order.
My question was "Who else does God's plan benefit but 'us'?"

Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else. How do you show her that her million dollar excess would be better spent on feeding the starving (who are not related to her) than on a chance at winning a million more in Vegas?

:rolling: I used to tell better jokes on this thread, but no one ever laughed.


I'll say "God did it first!" Don't be facetious. It's a serious question: "If you and I agree that we don't know whether [animals] are self-aware or not, how do we justify our treatment of them?"

Exactly. Since ethics vary, and morals vary, and you said ethics and morals are the tools we use to determine God's will... this creates a problem. Not all "moral codes" are right. My moral sense is based on Jesus' teachings and the golden rule, and I let reason determine how it should be applied. If a "morality" conflicts with those basic principles, I think that "morality" is flawed. If there are two moralities that have differences but neither conflicts with those basic principles, I will likely concede that each is right for those people who uphold it.

Either God is giving conflicting commands. (Maybe he likes war?) Or ethics and morals are developed naturally according to the society and the environment in which you live... and no God is needed. Or God is giving different commands to different people which in themselves do not conflict, but those different people make false claims about God's commands that bring them into conflict.

[AZSuperman]

How does it boil down to that? Please explain.
relevance is determined subjectively... you should ask yourself after every verse you read, 'Now, what should I think and do?

If your SOLE method of determining the validity of a scripture is based on your personal interpretation of that scripture, then it boils down to: "accepting the parts you agree with, interpreting parts as a parable if you like the moral but think the story is too improbable to be real, and throwing away the rest." (As I said.)

Unless you're going to claim you don't ignore the parts of the Bible which disagree with your concepts... which you obviously do from your earlier responses.

Scripture constantly refers to us as God's children. The concept of a humble child is constantly applied to a righteous person. That we are children in God's eyes, that God is higher than us, is basic tenet of every theistic religion I've heard of. How can this be written off simply as speculation?
Because until you can demonstrate that God exists, you may as well be calling us the child of Santa. Besides, as I said, being a child means you are the same, you are entitled to the same rights and privledges. Being God's child doesn't give him the right to destroy us.


But if an adolescent does something that gets her killed, do you blame the parent for giving the adolescent her freedom?
This is a completely different scenario. For God, we're all eternal... He decides which of us get to keep eternal life, and which of us fade into oblivion.

I think much of our disagreement is owed to you holding God responsible for death. If God wants to allow us to create and guide us in creating a perfect world and certain things and persons--thoughts and actions--must be eliminated to achieve that goal, I don't mind.
I don't blame God for anything, not anymore than I blame Santa for bringing the wrong presents. I'm merely pointing out the descrepancies in your concept of God.

According to you, God not only created physical death, but he destroys the soul of anyone who doesn't comply with his command 100%... In an earlier post you even said if God gets too frustrated with our performance he may destroy us all and start over (for a third time).

No, you keep saying that I keep saying angels are slaves, when the truth is that I said angels are like slaves one time.
And all of your other analogies have only strengthened your assertion.

I don't think I ever said they can't make choices.
I didn't mean to imply that we don't know that the wages of sin is death; I meant only to imply that we do not always have clear, unmistakable knowledge of God's will in every situation. If we did (knowing also that the wages of sin is death), we would be coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will... like angels.
Perhaps "being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will" doesn't really mean being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will?


I also said that thoughts and actions in accordance with God's will achieve eternity. Now, what if a person does a bad thing one day and a good thing the next? Do you think that I would say "God will destroy her"? If so, what have I said that would lead you to this conclusion?
You said God causes all people who do not do as he wishes to "cease to exist." Unless you're saying part of us will obtain eternal life as long as we did something right once. (Undoubtedly everyone does SOMETHING in accordance to God's will in their lifetime)


It probably does. Two different cultures start from two different points but have the same destination. The directions to that destination will vary between the two cultures.
Then shouldn't God be giving more revelations? Don't you think he'd be giving updates? Come on, the newest part of the Bible is almost 2000 years old! It's time for some more updated instructions!

That's why God forgives and people should also forgive themselves and others.
Does he forgive you before or after he smacks you into oblivion?

My question was "Who else does God's plan benefit but 'us'?"
God or not, there is only us... God would gain nothing from anything we do.

How do you show her that her million dollar excess would be better spent on feeding the starving (who are not related to her) than on a chance at winning a million more in Vegas?
It may not be better spent on feeding starving people. Perhaps she has a family member with cancer, she could contribute to research for finding a cure. You need to find a charity where she can see the benefits directly.

Don't be facetious. It's a serious question: "If you and I agree that we don't know whether [animals] are self-aware or not, how do we justify our treatment of them?"
I'm sorry, I really thought that was a joke. :Cheeky:

Survival. We eat animals to live. Our bodies have evolved in such a way that we can survive on both meat and vegetation, but they flourish best when you eat a combination of both. We wear animals to keep warm, most of the leather used commercially is from cows killed for the meat, not using the skins would be wasteful. We experiment on animals to perfect medical treatments to save human lives, if you know anyone who is an insulin dependant diabetic, you can thank animal experimenting for keeping them alive. We keep animals as pets, studies have shown that families with pets are generally healthier and happier.

Everything we do with animals is for our own survival. If God exists, he doesn't need us to survive. Nor does he need the angels enslaved in order to live. His actions toward them can not be excused.

Not all "moral codes" are right. My moral sense is based on Jesus' teachings and the golden rule,
I'm sure you ignore the verses where Jesus says you need to hate your family in order to be his deciple... and you probably ignore the parts where he said he didn't come to send peace but the sword. So you base your moral code on the teachings of Jesus which you happen to like.

Isn't that the same as making up your own moral code? It sounds like you could write a better moral code than Jesus.

... and I let reason determine how it should be applied. If a "morality" conflicts with those basic principles, I think that "morality" is flawed.
Earlier you said ethics and morals varied by location, and that God had sent different instructions to different people... Now you're saying if someone else's moral code differs from yours then it's flawed.

Which is it? Is God responsible for the different sets of ethics and morals, or is your moral code identical to God's?

If there are two moralities that have differences but neither conflicts with those basic principles, I will likely concede that each is right for those people who uphold it.
Give me an example of two conflicting morals in which neither conflicts with yours.

Or God is giving different commands to different people which in themselves do not conflict, but those different people make false claims about God's commands that bring them into conflict.
Amazing... look at this... If you remove God from the picture, you end up with people making false claims about God's commands (without ever having received commands in the first place) and the result is the same.

Either people lied about God, or people lied about God. It doesn't appear God is necessary for this explanation to be valid.

[John A. Broussard]

2nd request

Originally Posted by Copper Scroll
So, no matter how much God intervenes to prevent suffering, that intervention will not be enough to eliminate it. If God intervenes to eliminate it, then what is our purpose in life?

So, now you are saying that suffering is our purpose in life?

Please explain this very unusual interpretation of god's intentions for human beings.

Thank you.

[el creyente]

I have no reason to believe that angels are not all-knowing.
I have reason to believe that no one can have full and certain knowledge of future events.
And this stance is different from cherry-picking........how again???
I don't think that ancient people necessarily had a better shot at eternal life than us.
But in your previous comment, when you said that Jesus ushered in a new theology, weren't you implying that the current paradigm and discourse of the day was more receptive to this new theology? Didn't you also state the current paradigm and discourse of today was not good for spiritual matters? It just got me thinking, that if our current paradigm and discourse is not spiritually friendly that it would behoove god to come up with an improved theology, one that would match better with our current paradigm and discourse so that I may have a better shot at eternal life. That's what all my comments comparing this thought to new versions of software and computers was about. Now, if in your view of how god works, if he's not going to hold it against me that I'm not going to accept his message because of our current paradigm and discourse, I'm fine with that.
So what you are asking for is a new great revelation that is easier to understand and conforms more to our current paradigm and discourse? I don't have an answer for this question. It could happen. I do believe the revelations we have to work with are sufficient. I was just arguing that we must approach the Bible mindful of the fact that great shifts in paradigm and discourse have occurred since the Bible was written and compiled.
Sorry. See above for my comments.
Not so "seriously" that its completely incomprehensible and inaccessible.
What do you find accessible in today's current paradigm and discourse that supports a baby being born of a virgin? That supports a man being executed and buried but rising after three days, walking around town and talking with his friends?
I was comparing what I do theologically with what anyone does theologically.
Really? Because in you example, when the sunday school teacher deals with the Bible's internal inconsistencies, she asks her pastor what option she should believe in. And I suppose that you were implying that the pastor would tell her the option that is supported by their brand of theology, the answer that best fits the views of that particular congregation. And I know this is what most do theologically, because I've been there. I just didn't know that this is what YOU do. I was under the impression that when you have previously dealt with your view of god's knowledge of the future that you just ran this past yourself to decide which option to go with. Did you run this inconsistency past anyone, similar to what a pastor or sunday school teacher would do? Who?
Here, an example. Let me introduce you to the new members of a young. burgeouning church congregation:
Copper Scroll: Believes that scripture supports angel omniscience and god's knowledge of future events but personally believes only the former and not the latter.
Aaron: Believes that scripture supports angel omniscience and god's knowledge of future events but personally believes only the latter and not the former.
Brett: Believes that scripture supports angel omniscience and god's knowledge of future events and personally believes both.
Damon: Believes that scripture does NOT support angel omniscience and but DOES support god's knowledge of future events and personally believes only the latter and not the former.
Eric: Believes that scripture does support angel omniscience and but DOES NOT support god's knowledge of future events but personally believes both.
Etc., etc..... Do you think much is going to be accomplished in this congregation? Do you think much will be agreed upon? Do you see how I derive the term "free-for-all"?
That's fine. I do feel that determinism a weak spot in many brands of theism. People tend to feel that if everything is predetermined, their actions don't really matter--if not on a conscious level, then often on a subconscious level.
My comment about you being the first theist I've ever met was only meant to show you why I have such a hard time with your views, mainly due to my past (limited) experience. I hope you didn't take it any other way.
If we take into account how equipped God is to predict the future, there might not appear to be that much of a difference between me and the other theists you've encountered.
I doubt it. See below.

[el creyente]

This all goes back to our original discussion about the scripture you're referring to in the third statement. Please answer the comments I've already made on this issue.
I have reviewed your past comments on the issue and I'm glad we've come full circle, because I'm still not understanding how this works.

From your previous comments, I do understand that god is very, very good at making predictions. I also understand that he has a lot of past and present experiences on which to make predictions. I also understand that both god and myself are not completely in the dark about future events. For example, I know that when I sit down on my office chair it will support my weight, because of many, many past experiences I've had with my office chair. God also know this, but he also knows that the 8.00am southbound train out of Hamburg is chronically 2 minutes late and would be able to predict this since he knows everything past and present. (I wouldn't know this, and this makes god's knowledge about the future far superior to mine). I understand all of this.

However, my previous and main comment still stands. If something has never happened before (let's say the denial of someone), upon what past and present experiences does god use to accurately predict that someone will deny him at a specific point in time?

I also have a related question. If someone claimed that they didn't "know" the future, and were only able to "predict" future events, and this someone was able to accurately "predict" specific future events 100% of the time, wouldn't you eventually say that this someone "knows" the future? Or would you continue to claim this someone only makes "predictions" that just happen to be correct 100% of the time?

[Yahzi]

They are still able to choose, but with such full knowledge choosing anything but what actions God wills is irrational.
So God limits our knowledge of his will so we may rationally choose evil? You are asserting that God blinds us so that we might choose evil for rational reasons?

Yet you assert elsewhere that if we simply use our rational capabilties, we can clearly divine God's will.

Maybe you are trying to say that God lies to us so some of us will accidentally (and rationally) choose evil so he will have someone to torture in Hell. That would explain a lot: God cursed Man and threw him out of the Garden, and then laid traps so that some men might fall and go to Hell, because God was really, really bored and wanted to torture some people for fun. If this is the theology you are espousing, please acknowledge so in clear language. It seems to be consistent with your arguments.

Neither we individually nor the angels are born equal to God.
So slavery is ok if the slave-master is superior to the slave. You know, many people argued this exact line: that the clear superiority of the white race morally justified its enslavement of the black race.

Why do all of your arguments defending slavery sound like white people defending slavery? (Hint: because slavery is slavery, regardless of who is doing the slaving. And because the theology you espouse was invented by white people to justify their slavery of black people).

I can only describe my belief and hope it even comes close to the mark.
Your belief is incoherent. You assert contradictory propositions:

1) If we had full knowledge of God's will, we would not have choice.

2) The angels have full knowledge of God's will.

3) The angels have choice.

There is nothing indescribable about this. The description is as simple as, "One of these claims must be false."

[Yahzi]

Let's let CS speak for himself, mmmkay?
I thought CS was a "herself."

Not that it makes any difference to the argument; I just like to get my pronouns right.

[Chaupoline]

Either people lied about God, or people lied about God. It doesn't appear God is necessary for this explanation to be valid.

I don't understand the above statement.

relevance is determined subjectively... you should ask yourself after every verse you read, 'Now, what should I think and do?

If your SOLE method of determining the validity of a scripture is based on your personal interpretation of that scripture, then it boils down to: "accepting the parts you agree with, interpreting parts as a parable if you like the moral but think the story is too improbable to be real, and throwing away the rest." (As I said.)

Unless you're going to claim you don't ignore the parts of the Bible which disagree with your concepts... which you obviously do from your earlier responses.

There has been a lot of scriptures written in regards to the God of Abraham. Not all are regarded as canon. Picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that mean something to you is not a new concept. The Bible is supposed to inspire you.

Because until you can demonstrate that God exists, you may as well be calling us the child of Santa. Besides, as I said, being a child means you are the same, you are entitled to the same rights and privledges. Being God's child doesn't give him the right to destroy us.

You are looking for fairness in the world. It is like the signs that say not to feed the squirrels in the park, because they will then be incapable of fending for themselves. God created a reality based on conflict. God's favor towards us comes from our ability for abstract thought and our language abilities. These abilities have allowed us to become the masters of the planet. I consider these to be rights and privelages.

My question was "Who else does God's plan benefit but 'us'?"

God or not, there is only us... God would gain nothing from anything we do.

I agree with AZSuperman. We only have each other. God gains nothing from anything we do. This may be why God is so concerned with how we treat each other.

Not all "moral codes" are right. My moral sense is based on Jesus' teachings and the golden rule,

I'm sure you ignore the verses where Jesus says you need to hate your family in order to be his deciple... and you probably ignore the parts where he said he didn't come to send peace but the sword. So you base your moral code on the teachings of Jesus which you happen to like.

Isn't that the same as making up your own moral code? It sounds like you could write a better moral code than Jesus.

Everyone defines their own moral codes. However, CS is designing one based on scriptures that she feels are just. Picking and choosing is not bad. Ignoring everything that has been previously written is bad.

Amazing... look at this... If you remove God from the picture, you end up with people making false claims about God's commands (without ever having received commands in the first place) and the result is the same.

Instead of making claims about God, secularists make claims about reality. If you were to substitute God for reality, there would be no diffrences as long as you Pick and Choose from religious texts or secular texts. All or nothing does not help anyone. Or do you feel that because you are an atheist that you shouldn't ever use passages in the Bible to make a point about something regarding morality.

[AZSuperman]

Either people lied about God, or people lied about God. It doesn't appear God is necessary for this explanation to be valid.I don't understand the above statement.
This was in response to a scenario in which CS said someone had made false claims about what God said, and those claims resulted in conflict. My point was that no God needed to exist in this scenario... Only the claims of God.

Either someone lied about what God said (and ignored what he really said) or someone lied about what God said (because he never really said anything)... Either way the result is the same.

There has been a lot of scriptures written in regards to the God of Abraham. Not all are regarded as canon. Picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that mean something to you is not a new concept. The Bible is supposed to inspire you.
I am aware it's not a new concept, but it calls the idea of an omnipotent God into question. If God can't keep his word pure, then how powerful can he be?

If you're going to cherry-pick verses from the canon, why limit yourself? Search the non canonized books, the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, Dianetics, etc.

Then (once you've picked the verses you're going to accept) when you're discussing God in a public forum, you can either provide an objective method for us to use to determine which verses are really inspired, or you can avoid discussing anything related to a holy book you don't wish to defend.

There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking... in fact, I think it's commendable. It shows you're not willing to accept all the garbage in the Bible as true on face value alone. There is nothing wrong with that, we (atheists) are the same, we don't accept it at face value either. But if you're going to use the Bible to make a point, we'll also use it to show you where it contradicts itself... it will be up to you to explain why one part is more valid than the other.

Because until you can demonstrate that God exists, you may as well be calling us the child of Santa. Besides, as I said, being a child means you are the same, you are entitled to the same rights and privledges. Being God's child doesn't give him the right to destroy us. You are looking for fairness in the world. It is like the signs that say not to feed the squirrels in the park, because they will then be incapable of fending for themselves. God created a reality based on conflict. God's favor towards us comes from our ability for abstract thought and our language abilities. These abilities have allowed us to become the masters of the planet. I consider these to be rights and privelages.
This part of the discussion focused on whether or not God has the right to destroy us (or send us to Hell, whichever you believe). I pointed out to CS where the Bible states we are all children of God, and pointed out that children are entitled to the same rights as the parents. As such, God has no more right to destroy (or torture) us then you do to destroy (or torture) your children.

I agree with you in regards to how we have become masters of the planet. No other animal has evolved to possess our level of communication ability. Other animals can warn of danger, tell others where to find food, call out for mates, and some gorillas can even answer simple questions with sign language but none can discuss abstract thoughts or relay events about previous events.

However, no God is needed to explain this. Evolution explains quite clearly why an animal with an advanced communication ability (compared to preditors and prey) would have a greater chance of survival. That same animal would procreate much faster, and would soon dominate the planet. Which is exactly what happened.

I agree with AZSuperman. We only have each other. God gains nothing from anything we do. This may be why God is so concerned with how we treat each other.
I'm glad you agree with me, but this raises the question: If God gains nothing from anything we do, why are we here?

Religious people usually claim that without religion life has no meaning, but when it boils down to it, religion has the same problem. God has nothing to gain by creating humans, and nothing to lose by leaving them uncreated. If god exists, our existence is pointless.

Everyone defines their own moral codes. However, CS is designing one based on scriptures that she feels are just. Picking and choosing is not bad. Ignoring everything that has been previously written is bad.
Picking and choosing is not bad, it shows that you're thinking for yourself. (Which is always a good thing.) It also shows that you have a pre-existing moral code and you're choosing the verses which comply with it. In other words, CS didn't design her moral code based on certain scriptures, she picked scriptures which matched her existing moral code. The scriptures themselves are then pointless. They're not a compass, the compass is internal. They're not a guide, the guide is internal. The Bible isn't needed, any book can work just as effectively.

Having your own moral code is great! There is definately nothing wrong with that. It demonstrates that there is no need for the Bible, or any other holy book, to serve as a moral guide. Morals can be (and are) taught without the Bible, without the Qu'ran, and without mentioning God.

Instead of making claims about God, secularists make claims about reality. If you were to substitute God for reality, there would be no diffrences as long as you Pick and Choose from religious texts or secular texts. All or nothing does not help anyone. Or do you feel that because you are an atheist that you shouldn't ever use passages in the Bible to make a point about something regarding morality.
Do you use passages from the Qu'ran when discussing morality? Why not? There are plenty of beautiful verses there. What about the Book of Mormon? The Hindu Vedas? The Buddhist writings? Do you quote from any other holy book when discussing morality? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't. Probably not because you disagree with what's being said in those books, but because you don't need them to say it.

No one needs to quote: "Thou shalt not kill," when they can simply say "Murder is wrong." No one needs to quote: "Thou shalt not steal," when they can say "Don't take what's not yours." The Bible isn't needed as a moral compass. Morals exist outside the Bible, anyone who cherry-picks is a perfect example.

If you want to use the parts of the Bible to show your morality, you're free to do so. There are some good parts in the Bible too, no one here will disagree with that. Just don't claim the Bible is required for morals, or that its the perfect word of God... that's when we'll show you the bad side of the Bible, and the things that no "good" God would command.

[John A. Broussard]

You are looking for fairness in the world. It is like the signs that say not to feed the squirrels in the park, because they will then be incapable of fending for themselves. God created a reality based on conflict. God's favor towards us comes from our ability for abstract thought and our language abilities. These abilities have allowed us to become the masters of the planet. I consider these to be rights and privelages.

Definitely.

It's a right and privilege to lose ones loved ones in a fire, or earthquake, or tsunami, or flood. It's a right and priviledge to watch one's family die from ebola. It's a right and privilege to suffer and to watch others suffer.

Suffering is the supreme privilege, and is nothing more nor less than an expression of god's love of human kind.

[Copper Scroll]

If your SOLE method of determining the validity of a scripture is based on your personal interpretation of that scripture, then it boils down to: "accepting the parts you agree with, interpreting parts as a parable if you like the moral but think the story is too improbable to be real, and throwing away the rest." (As I said.)
How is asking yourself "Now, what should I think and do?" the same thing is "Now, do I agree with this or not?"?

Unless you're going to claim you don't ignore the parts of the Bible which disagree with your concepts... which you obviously do from your earlier responses.
I do not ignore them. It could have very well been written in one of the texts included in the bible that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. (This may be in the Bible. If so, let me know.) If this were in the Bible, I would "disagree" with it, yes. But I wouldn't ignore it. I would say that the person who wrote it made a mistake that was very common during his time.

Being God's child doesn't give him the right to destroy us. Again, you and I have different notions of who is doing the destroying. See below.



This is a completely different scenario. For God, we're all eternal... He decides which of us get to keep eternal life, and which of us fade into oblivion. No, we choose our fate.


According to you, God not only created physical death, but he destroys the soul of anyone who doesn't comply with his command 100%... When did I write that?

In an earlier post you even said if God gets too frustrated with our performance he may destroy us all and start over (for a third time). God certainly has the ability to. I don't believe that God would. My point was that God's plan will be fulfilled. That this is a certainty.


And all of your other analogies have only strengthened your assertion. You have chosen to see it that way, ignoring my descriptions of how an angel and a human being are each fundamentally different from one another and how God is fundamentally different from us both.


Perhaps "being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will" doesn't really mean being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will? So after all of this time, you still can't see that being coerced does not necessarily mean that choice is impossible?

A starving man will be compelled to eat food if you present some to him and make it accessible. Can he choose not the eat it? Yes. It might be an irrational choice, but it is a choice.


Unless you're saying part of us will obtain eternal life as long as we did something right once. I am saying that and have said it. A person should certainly do more than one right thing. The main thing a person should do is repent of her wrongdoing by doing right.


Then shouldn't God be giving more revelations? I won't decide what God should and shouldn't do. I will decide what I should and shouldn't do.

Don't you think he'd be giving updates? God does, I believe, speak to people all the time.

Come on, the newest part of the Bible is almost 2000 years old! It's time for some more updated instructions! Not if the basic principles remain the same and our understanding does not stray from them.

It may not be better spent on feeding starving people. Perhaps she has a family member with cancer, she could contribute to research for finding a cure. This is not the scenario I asked you about.

You need to find a charity where she can see the benefits directly.
Are you saying that it would be better for her to blow her money in Vegas than to feed the starving? Feeding the starving has no direct benefit to her; it doesn't even have an indirect benefit to her. Vegas, on the other hand, offers at least the chance to win more money. That's a benefit.

Survival. We eat animals to live. Our bodies have evolved in such a way that we can survive on both meat and vegetation, but they flourish best when you eat a combination of both. We wear animals to keep warm, There are plenty of people who are doing more than surviving--they are leading very healthy lives without meat. I bet many of them have managed to keep warm with animal hides. But I'm not one to throw blood on old ladies wearing fur coats because I understand that it is at least widely perceived that we (humans) are fundamentally different from other animals--even if this difference is owed only to our ability to communicate abstract concepts with one another. My argument about the angels was that there are similar differences between them and us and between us all and God.

Everything we do with animals is for our own survival. I disagree.

I'm sure you ignore the verses where Jesus says you need to hate your family in order to be his deciple... and you probably ignore the parts where he said he didn't come to send peace but the sword.
You've got me wrong here. (It's not the first time.) Within that sociocultural context, Jesus was a radical. If anyone follows radical teachings it is likely that they will turn away from the beliefs of people they love and the values of society at large.

Notice what I've done here. I've put the text you alluded to within its context and by doing so found a truth you and I can relate to and understand.

(By the way, Jesus also said "blessed are the peacemakers" at least once and "peace be with you" a bunch of times.)

So you base your moral code on the teachings of Jesus which you happen to like. Not so. Jesus speaks of "hell fire". I don't want to believe in "hell fire" but I know that it must be.

Earlier you said ethics and morals varied by location, and that God had sent different instructions to different people... Now you're saying if someone else's moral code differs from yours then it's flawed.

Which is it? Probably both. There are probably flaws in them all. I believe, however, that most share the same kernal.

Is God responsible for the different sets of ethics and morals, or is your moral code identical to God's? Morality is for people, not God. God gives us our moral sense to help us in the fulfillment of God's plan.

Two different people in two different contexts can practice two different moralities and both can be valid... or one could be flawed because of the way one chooses to practice it... or both could be flawed.

Give me an example of two conflicting morals in which neither conflicts with yours. I wrote "If there are two moralities that have differences but neither conflicts with those basic principles, I will likely concede that each is right for those people who uphold it."

Did you see that episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where the Orthodox Jew jumps off the ski-lift because (for her) it was immoral to be alone with a man after dark? She had asked Larry to jump, but he refused because for him it was more immoral to risk bodily harm. I don't think either of their moralities conflict with the basic principles I refer to above.

Either someone lied about what God said (and ignored what he really said) or someone lied about what God said (because he never really said anything)... Either way the result is the same.
No. Someone can misinterpret or misapply what God says. Here's an example: God can say something along the lines of "Keep your house in order" to two different people. One person interprets this simple statement as telling him to keep his wife in the house and make sure she serves meals at certain times. Another person can interpret this to mean that he should make sure his doesn't drop his dirty drawers on the floor. Two different social and cultural contexts will lead to these two interpretations. If each writes their interpretation down and those writings get canonized, we have a controversy.

If God can't keep his word pure, then how powerful can he be? There is no such thing as a pure word. No words can capture the meaning precisely. Words are tools. They can only point at the truth; they can't be it.

But if you're going to use the Bible to make a point, we'll also use it to show you where it contradicts itself... it will be up to you to explain why one part is more valid than the other. By bringing up historical and cultural contexts, it seems, I've been ignored. The only thing you seem to carry away is me "cherry-picking".

I did write in a post (I believe that it was addressed to you) that I held the Gospels' characterization of Jesus to be more valid than the Qu'ran's because the Gospels were written closer to Jesus' own life, possibly by people who knew him. This is one example of how one text can be shown to be more valid than another.

I also wrote that the validity of the epistles is limited by the contexts in which they were written. They were letters their writers never planned on being "canonized."

[Copper Scroll]

So, now you are saying that suffering is our purpose in life?. Our purpose is to alleviate and ultimately end suffering.

[Copper Scroll]

And this stance is different from cherry-picking........how again??? One is logically possible and probable while the other is not, if it is assumed that our wills are free.

But in your previous comment, when you said that Jesus ushered in a new theology, weren't you implying that the current paradigm and discourse of the day was more receptive to this new theology? Perhaps, but the reason for Jesus' coming wasn't really (I don't think) because a paradigm had shifted. It was because the meaning of God's laws were lost on the people and the people were following the laws blindly without regard for their meaning. In other words, the people were lost--not necessarily because the paradigm had shifted but because they were corrupted nearly beyond repair. I would argue that though our paradigm has changed since the texts in the Bible were written and though we are not perfect, we are not as corrupted or lost as the society Jesus was born into.

Didn't you also state the current paradigm and discourse of today was not good for spiritual matters? Some people have found difficulty in applying our current paradigm to ancients truths and wisdom. They have not been able to reconcile the two. For them, our current discourse doesn't have room for spirituality. Others, like myself, don't have a problem with it.

It just got me thinking, that if our current paradigm and discourse is not spiritually friendly that it would behoove god to come up with an improved theology, one that would match better with our current paradigm and discourse so that I may have a better shot at eternal life. I believe you probably have a better shot than you think.

That's what all my comments comparing this thought to new versions of software and computers was about. Now, if in your view of how god works, if he's not going to hold it against me that I'm not going to accept his message because of our current paradigm and discourse, I'm fine with that.
What "message" don't you accept?

Sorry. See above for my comments. Another great thing about our current discourse is that it is informed by history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, biology, etc. which allow us to approach the Bible with enough information to read and understand it within our own context.

What do you find accessible in today's current paradigm and discourse that supports a baby being born of a virgin? That supports a man being executed and buried but rising after three days, walking around town and talking with his friends? What's more important: that Mary was a virgin when she carried Jesus or that Jesus was pure and sent directly from God? What's more important: that Jesus was dead for three days before he flew into the sky or that a person's righteousness and faith can defeat death and attain eternity? To me, the latter is more important in each case and can be understood fully from reading those texts.

Really? Because in you example, when the sunday school teacher deals with the Bible's internal inconsistencies, she asks her pastor what option she should believe in. And I suppose that you were implying that the pastor would tell her the option that is supported by their brand of theology, the answer that best fits the views of that particular congregation. And I know this is what most do theologically, because I've been there. I just didn't know that this is what YOU do. I was under the impression that when you have previously dealt with your view of god's knowledge of the future that you just ran this past yourself to decide which option to go with. Did you run this inconsistency past anyone, similar to what a pastor or sunday school teacher would do? Who? Actually, I have, but I don't think it really matters whether I did or didn't.

Do you think much is going to be accomplished in this congregation? Do you think much will be agreed upon? Do you see how I derive the term "free-for-all"? If we spend all of our time fussing about what angels know and exactly what about the future God doesn't know, nothing will get accomplished. I doubt this is how we should be spending our time. If we can agree that God's plan will be fulfilled and what that plan is and our role in it, then much can be accomplished, taught, and learned.

My comment about you being the first theist I've ever met was only meant to show you why I have such a hard time with your views, mainly due to my past (limited) experience. I hope you didn't take it any other way. I didn't, but let me ask you: What was the central message(s) of the church you were raised in, and how much does it depend on God knowing exactly and with full certainty what you will be doing this day next year?

If something has never happened before (let's say the denial of someone), upon what past and present experiences does god use to accurately predict that someone will deny him at a specific point in time? I believe that God knows the content of people's "hearts"; God knows our patterns of thoughts and actions. We do have free will, but we probably spend most of our time just reacting. I believe this was probably truer during Jesus' time. If God knows about everything and everyone that is acting and God knows the pattern of those actions, God is well-informed enough to predict how we will react and when. I can only speculate how Jesus knew what Peter would do: God knew the power of Peter's insecurities and fears and predicted that these would lead Peter to deny Jesus at each opportunity, and God knew enough about the social environment to predict the number and timing of those opportunities, and God knew the rooster enough to predict when he would crow.

I also speculated that this encounter may not have happened verbatim and literally the way it is described in the text. I don't know what else to say besides "I don't know."

If someone claimed that they didn't "know" the future, and were only able to "predict" future events, and this someone was able to accurately "predict" specific future events 100% of the time, wouldn't you eventually say that this someone "knows" the future? Probably not--at least not in a way consistent with how I have been using the word "know". What I will do tomorrow can be predicted, but I have the choice to do anything tomorrow.

Or would you continue to claim this someone only makes "predictions" that just happen to be correct 100% of the time? Show me this person. I have some questions.

[Copper Scroll]

So God limits our knowledge of his will so we may rationally choose evil? You are asserting that God blinds us so that we might choose evil for rational reasons? No. The limit of our knowledge is a consequence of our materiality. If we were not able to choose evil, we would not be able to choose at all.


Yet you assert elsewhere that if we simply use our rational capabilties, we can clearly divine God's will. Not reason alone.

Maybe you are trying to say that God lies to us so some of us will accidentally (and rationally) choose evil so he will have someone to torture in Hell. That wouldn't make much sense.

That would explain a lot: God cursed Man and threw him out of the Garden, and then laid traps so that some men might fall and go to Hell, because God was really, really bored and wanted to torture some people for fun. If this is the theology you are espousing, please acknowledge so in clear language. It seems to be consistent with your arguments. God laying traps so that people can fall into Hell is consistent with God's plan for people to sustain themselves and the world in perfect peace for eternity? If God wants people to live forever why would these traps be set? How is this consistent with my argument?


So slavery is ok if the slave-master is superior to the slave. You know, many people argued this exact line: that the clear superiority of the white race morally justified its enslavement of the black race. The superiority of the white race is not so clear to me. If it were true that whites are somehow superior to blacks, that argument might carry weight. But clearly it isn't true. A white man can't do anything I can't do by virtue of being white--except be white. But I have him beat on being black. I call that even. God can do (and is) far more than either of us.

Why do all of your arguments defending slavery sound like white people defending slavery? I resent your assertion that I have defended slavery. :mad: I won't write on it any further. This time, I am offended.

Your belief is incoherent. You assert contradictory propositions:

1) If we had full knowledge of God's will, we would not have choice.

2) The angels have full knowledge of God's will.

3) The angels have choice. The first one is worded wrong. The freedom of our choice would be compromised if we had full and clear knowledge of God's will in every instance of our lives.

There is nothing indescribable about this. The description is as simple as, "One of these claims must be false." This is not the first time the "incoherency", "inconsistency", or "self-contradition" of my beliefs about the angels (which has little to do with my central argument on this thread entitled "What is God?") has been brought to my attention and I fear it won't be the last. Let's (try to) be clear: Someone can be said to be forced to do something and still have the choice of doing something else.

I thought CS was a "herself." "Himself" was right, but to keep the unnecessary confusion level low, I can keep being a woman.

[Copper Scroll]

The Bible is supposed to inspire you. This is a breath of fresh air!

I agree with AZSuperman. We only have each other. God gains nothing from anything we do. This may be why God is so concerned with how we treat each other. And I agree with you both.

[AZSuperman]

How is asking yourself "Now, what should I think and do?" the same thing is "Now, do I agree with this or not?"?
Imagine you read a verse you find questionable.. such as:
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"
"Now what should I think and do?" - Find children and dash them? or Choose not to believe this will make me happy?

As I mentioned in an early post, there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking, it shows an ability to think for yourself. It shows that you have created your own morality. It also shows the Bible is not needed for you, it's only used to re-enforce your pre-existing ethics.

I do not ignore them. It could have very well been written in one of the texts included in the bible that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. (This may be in the Bible. If so, let me know.)
There are numerous verses which alude to this.

If this were in the Bible, I would "disagree" with it, yes. But I wouldn't ignore it. I would say that the person who wrote it made a mistake that was very common during his time.
"Now what should I think and do?" - Decide the author was mistaken, and therefore decide NOT to believe this verse, or decide modern scientists are mistaken (God could make it appear the Earth revolves around the sun, while keeping the planet stationary... God could make it appear the Earth is round, while keeping it flat) and choose TO believe this verse.

Obviously, you're not one who considers the Bible inerrent, so this choice is easy.

Again, you and I have different notions of who is doing the destroying. See below.
You blame the victim, I blame the persecutor.

This is a completely different scenario. For God, we're all eternal... He decides which of us get to keep eternal life, and which of us fade into oblivion.No, we choose our fate.
(According to you) we're all eternal creatures, we can all survive indefinitely.
I guess we can go back to your "man with a gun" analogy. God coerced the angels into doing his will by pointing a gun at their heads. (figuratively) They know they will be destroyed if they disobey his will. God also pointed the gun and us and made the same threat, although he doesn't tell us what to do. You're saying it's our fault if he pulls the trigger? How do you figure?


According to you, God not only created physical death, but he destroys the soul of anyone who doesn't comply with his command 100%.When did I write that?
Are you changing your tune now? Are you saying God will allow people to have eternal life if they don't comply to God's will?

God certainly has the ability to. I don't believe that God would. My point was that God's plan will be fulfilled. That this is a certainty.
God's abilities are anything but certain. His existence is not even established. You opinions of what God will or will not do are also of little importance as God's actions (if he exists) are not reliant on your beliefs. Your point was simple: God's plan will be fulfilled... at any cost. (Even the cost of all living things, again.) God will kill whomever he feels he needs to in order to accomplish his goals. Man, woman, child, animal it makes no difference... God will do whatever it takes to get the job done. In other words, the end justifies the means.

You have chosen to see it that way, ignoring my descriptions of how an angel and a human being are each fundamentally different from one another and how God is fundamentally different from us both.
And it has been pointed out repeatedly that the same arguments were used by white slave owners to justify owning slaves.

Perhaps "being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will" doesn't really mean being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will?So after all of this time, you still can't see that being coerced does not necessarily mean that choice is impossible?
Your analogy of the man holding a gun to my head was very fitting... but when you say someone is being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will it doesn't leave much room for personal options.

If someone is robbing a bank, and they hold a gun to a hostage's head and force her to collect the money, should she be charged with a crime? Most likely she will argue that she was being forced to cooperate with the will of the robbers. But according to you she had the option to say no. With such a clear choice available, should she be charged as an accomplice?

A starving man will be compelled to eat food if you present some to him and make it accessible. Can he choose not the eat it? Yes. It might be an irrational choice, but it is a choice.
First of all, presenting an option is not the same as being coerced. In the scenario with God, the angels are being directly threatened... obey or die. It's a completely different scenario. Second, it's not always irrational to refuse food. Perhaps you're trying to serve hamburger to a Hindu. He feels cows are sacred, and will not eat because he would rather die than eat a cow. Perhaps the man has reason to believe the food is poisened. Perhaps he's on a hunger strike, his cause may be more important to him than his life.

Unless you're saying part of us will obtain eternal life as long as we did something right once.I am saying that and have said it.
Great!! Then what's all this trouble about being destroyed? I'm sure it would be impossible for a person to not do a SINGLE thing in accordance to God's will during their entire life! Even accidently. Who is God going to destroy? No one has done everything wrong since birth.

A person should certainly do more than one right thing. The main thing a person should do is repent of her wrongdoing by doing right.
What's the benefit? We've got eternal life already because we've done something right at some point in the past... and we'll probably do a few more things right in the future. Why bother repenting for anything? Why bother trying to do God's will when you've probably already earned eternal life by accident?

Then shouldn't God be giving more revelations?I won't decide what God should and shouldn't do. I will decide what I should and shouldn't do.
I wasn't asking you to make a decision for God. I was asking why you thought he continues to use outdated revelations instead of providing some new insight.

God does, I believe, speak to people all the time.
As I mentioned earlier, God's actions are not reliant upon your beliefs. Can you show that God is speaking to people all the time? Can you provide evidence of this communication? Why doesn't he speak to everyone?

Come on, the newest part of the Bible is almost 2000 years old! It's time for some more updated instructions!Not if the basic principles remain the same and our understanding does not stray from them.
33,380 Christian denominations (World Christian Encyclopedia[/i) shows our understanding is a little confused at best.

It may not be better spent on feeding starving people. Perhaps she has a family member with cancer, she could contribute to research for finding a cure.This is not the scenario I asked you about.
This is the scenario you asked me about:
[i]Now, someone else might mean her family and her house when she says "ourselves, our community, and our environment". What do you suggest would help her to look beyond her own immediate interests, and those of her family, to the interest of everyone in the world?
I answered: "Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else."

You then changed your scenario to:
How do you show her that her million dollar excess would be better spent on feeding the starving (who are not related to her) than on a chance at winning a million more in Vegas?
This is a false dichotomy. Gambling in Vegas, and feeding the starving appear to be the only two options, while in reality there are hundreds of other possibilities. I stand by my answer. "Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else." I suggested she may have a family member with cancer (or possibly a history of cancer in her family) she may be more likely to donate money to cancer research because she sees the benefit.
There are other options as well:
Perhaps she has children, and if you quote figures showing that most of the homeless are under the age of eight, then she may empathize because she thinks of her own children.
She may love animals, she may want to donate her money to an animal preserve, or a no kill shelter.
She may donate to Habitat for Humanity (or a similar charity) to help make homes for needy families.
She may donate to United Way because she wants to better her own community.

Are you saying that it would be better for her to blow her money in Vegas than to feed the starving? Feeding the starving has no direct benefit to her; it doesn't even have an indirect benefit to her. Vegas, on the other hand, offers at least the chance to win more money. That's a benefit.
Drop the false dichotomy, and don't put words in my mouth. No where did I say (or allude) that it was better for her to blow her money in Vegas than it to feed the hungry.

There are plenty of people who are doing more than surviving--they are leading very healthy lives without meat. I bet many of them have managed to keep warm with animal hides. But I'm not one to throw blood on old ladies wearing fur coats because I understand that it is at least widely perceived that we (humans) are fundamentally different from other animals--even if this difference is owed only to our ability to communicate abstract concepts with one another.
I'm not disputing the vegetarian lifestyle. You can live a very healthy life that way. I only stated that the human body was made to work on a combination diet of meat and vegetables. Nowadays, with suppliments, and many different kinds of food available, it's possible to survive without eating meat. However, that's not how the body evolved.
My argument about the angels was that there are similar differences between them and us and between us all and God.
And my response to that argument was that we use and eat animals to survive. God doesn't need us for his own survival.

You've got me wrong here. (It's not the first time.) Within that sociocultural context, Jesus was a radical. If anyone follows radical teachings it is likely that they will turn away from the beliefs of people they love and the values of society at large.

Notice what I've done here. I've put the text you alluded to within its context and by doing so found a truth you and I can relate to and understand.
No, you changed the wording to say what you want it to say. You subtly changed a direct requirment from Jesus into a likelyhood. Jesus said you COULD NOT become his disiple unless you hated your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, etc. You've altered to say "You may need to turn away from your family because they might not agree with my teachings." If this is your method of reading the scriptures, it's no wonder you agree with them. Using this method, you can make it say whatever you want it to.

(By the way, Jesus also said "blessed are the peacemakers" at least once and "peace be with you" a bunch of times.)
I never said Jesus didn't say anything good. I said you choose to pay accept the verses which agree with the moral standard you have already established, while your ignore, or change (as in the example above) the verses which don't match your personal feelings.

Not so. Jesus speaks of "hell fire". I don't want to believe in "hell fire" but I know that it must be.Really? You've never mentioned Hell before. In fact you've said you don't believe in it. You've said that people who do not do God's will will cease to exist... where does "hell-fire" fit in?

Jesus also said no one will have eternal life unless they call on him, you seem to be saying everyone can have eternal life, as long as some of their actions are in accordance with God's will.

Morality is for people, not God.That's made obvious by the OT.
God gives us our moral sense to help us in the fulfillment of God's plan. But our moral sense varies by location... and you said morals which don't match your own are flawed. So God gave a better (more accurate) moral sense to some, while leaving others with less of a chance of obtaining eternal life due to their flawed morals.

I wrote "If there are two moralities that have differences but neither conflicts with those basic principles, I will likely concede that each is right for those people who uphold it."

Did you see that episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where the Orthodox Jew jumps off the ski-lift because (for her) it was immoral to be alone with a man after dark? She had asked Larry to jump, but he refused because for him it was more immoral to risk bodily harm. I don't think either of their moralities conflict with the basic principles I refer to above.
LOL :rolling:

I hadn't seen that. I'd consider that someone who took her morality a little too extreme!

Either someone lied about what God said (and ignored what he really said) or someone lied about what God said (because he never really said anything)... Either way the result is the same.No. Someone can misinterpret or misapply what God says...
Okay, so there are three options... Someone intentionally lied about what God said, someone accidently lied about what God said (misinterpret) or someone can make up something and claim it was said by God. You've only added an aditional option, it doesn't get rid of the fact that a person inventing instructions from God will have the same result as somone misinterpreting God. (Although one must wonder how powerful God is if he can't communicate his message clearly.

There is no such thing as a pure word. No words can capture the meaning precisely. Words are tools. They can only point at the truth; they can't be it.By "pure word" I meant "not corrupted by man." No interpolation, no human adaptations, etc. You're saying the "all-powerful" God can create the world, but the can't communicate clearly?

But if you're going to use the Bible to make a point, we'll also use it to show you where it contradicts itself... it will be up to you to explain why one part is more valid than the other.By bringing up historical and cultural contexts, it seems, I've been ignored. The only thing you seem to carry away is me "cherry-picking".
In the examples given, you've gotten upset at us for bringing up the OT, and you've stated we need to keep the historical and cultural contexts in mind, but until your last post you had yet to even attempt to explain the context of a single verse (although you did so by completely altering the meaning of the verse). If two parts of the Bible clash, you will need to explain how they can be interpreted in order to eliminate the clash. Stating that the culture was different when it was written doesn't resolve the issue.

I did write in a post (I believe that it was addressed to you) that I held the Gospels' characterization of Jesus to be more valid than the Qu'ran's because the Gospels were written closer to Jesus' own life, possibly by people who knew him. This is one example of how one text can be shown to be more valid than another.
One could claim that the Qu'ran is a more recent revelation from God, and has therefore had less time to be corrupted by man, therefore it more accurately reveals God's will.

(Very few people believe the Gospels were written by anyone who actually knew Jesus. The stories were passed down orally for years before the gospels were finally written by anonymous authors in the late first century or early second.)

I also wrote that the validity of the epistles is limited by the contexts in which they were written. They were letters their writers never planned on being "canonized."
Because they believed Jesus would return within their lifetime.

[Chaupoline]

As I mentioned in an early post, there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking, it shows an ability to think for yourself. It shows that you have created your own morality. It also shows the Bible is not needed for you, it's only used to re-enforce your pre-existing ethics.

1. Why is there so much inconsistency in the Bible?

I see the authors of the Bible much like modern day philosophers, scientists and theologians. However, modern theologians, scientists and philosophers do not have their writings inside one book that is considered modern thought. Can you imagine reading The modern book and being confused because Freud and Ptolemy do not match up with Hawkings and Pat Robertson. There would be even more confusion if the Gnostic texts were added to the Bible.

Definitely.

It's a right and privilege to lose ones loved ones in a fire, or earthquake, or tsunami, or flood. It's a right and priviledge to watch one's family die from ebola. It's a right and privilege to suffer and to watch others suffer.

Suffering is the supreme privilege, and is nothing more nor less than an expression of god's love of human kind.

2. Why is there so much suffering in the world? Does this mean that God does not love me?

Your feelings are inconsequential. IF God wanted you to have a cushy life the world would not exist as it is. We also would not advance as a people. Humans are designed to be problemsolvers. What good would a world of no problems serve us? There is suffering to inspire us to become better.

Are you changing your tune now? Are you saying God will allow people to have eternal life if they don't comply to God's will?

I don't believe that Heaven and Hell are seperate places from the world that we live in now. Some Christians believe that if you have lived a sinful life when you die you will go to hell, and if you were a good person in life when you die you will go to heaven. Either way you have eternal life. I believe that when you die you will be reborn on our planet as a newborn. If you were a sinful person, you will be reborn into the hell that you had a part in creating. In this belief system, Heaven and Hell exist but it is a diffrent way of looking at them. Either way you will have eternal life, but your afterlife will be dependent on how sinful all of mankind is.

God's abilities are anything but certain. His existence is not even established. You opinions of what God will or will not do are also of little importance as God's actions (if he exists) are not reliant on your beliefs. Your point was simple: God's plan will be fulfilled... at any cost. (Even the cost of all living things, again.) God will kill whomever he feels he needs to in order to accomplish his goals. Man, woman, child, animal it makes no difference... God will do whatever it takes to get the job done. In other words, the end justifies the means.

3. What is God's plan?

God's plan isn't to spank you when you disagree with his will. The world will spank you when you mess up. These are the consequences of your mistakes. Human conflict comes in two forms. Man vs Nature and Man vs Man. You can blame God for creating a world of conflict all you want. It inspires us to learn that much more about the world and ourselves.

God initially gave Adam one task. Name everything in the Garden of Eden. As simple as the statement is what it means to me is name and try to figure out everything in your environment. We are designed to think of things in an abstract way. God isn't punishing us. This is just the way that things are.

I wasn't asking you to make a decision for God. I was asking why you thought he continues to use outdated revelations instead of providing some new insight.

4. Why have we not heard from God in 2000 years?

I think God began talking to Mankind with Abraham so he could use the Tribes of Israel to wipe out the last remnants of the Nephilim in the Lands of Canaan. Through Moses and later Joshua he transformed the 12 tribes into a disiplined fighting force. However, they became to dependent on the system for protection and lost track of their morality. Jesus came to break up the system and get people to start focusing on morality and helping their fellow man again. Morality is not dependent on a knowledge of God though. Jesus came to help the Jews find their light again. Paul extended the message of Jesus to the Roman Empire.

[Copper Scroll]

Imagine you read a verse you find questionable.. such as:
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"
"Now what should I think and do?" - Find children and dash them? or Choose not to believe this will make me happy? This text was directed to the oppressor of Israel, Babylon. Its a nationalistic text, like much of the Old Testament, that is brutal by our standards. I won't defend it, but it reminds me a little of something....

You implied before that the purpose of our ethics is our own survival. You ordered what you mean by "our", I think: you, your family, your community, your world (in order of importance). Can we slide nation between community and world? Israel (rightfully) saw Babylon as a threat to its survival. By your standard, then, it would not be wrong for Israelites to want to destroy Babylonians.

As I mentioned in an early post, there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking, it shows an ability to think for yourself. It shows that you have created your own morality. It also shows the Bible is not needed for you, it's only used to re-enforce your pre-existing ethics. I never said that the Bible was a prerequisite for morality. I have some questions: Did I make up my ethics and morals? or did ethics and morality evolve and I inherit them? If so, what is the end goal of evolution?

You blame the victim, I blame the persecutor. Who you call the victim here is the persecutor. God offers the option to live.


You're saying it's our fault if he pulls the trigger? How do you figure?
No. In reality, there is no gun.


Are you changing your tune now? Are you saying God will allow people to have eternal life if they don't comply to God's will?
Changing my tune? When did I write "God not only created physical death, but he destroys the soul of anyone who doesn't comply with his command 100%."

I wrote a while ago:
"8. A conscious agent is her thoughts and actions.
"18. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions cause or contribute to the sustenance of the material world in perfect peace are eternal.
"21. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fullfillment of God's plan cease.
"22. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan cease.
"23. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan are eternal."

And it has been pointed out repeatedly that the same arguments were used by white slave owners to justify owning slaves. Are you saying that whites are fundamentally different from (better than?) blacks?


Your analogy of the man holding a gun to my head was very fitting... but when you say someone is being coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will it doesn't leave much room for personal options. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. In your last post (for the upteenth time), you implied that I was contradicting myself by saying that someone could be forced to do something but still have a choice (the way the devil chooses to disobey God). The gun analogy was drawn to show that someone could be forced to do something but still choose to do something else (however irrational that choice). You have not said that you disagree with this, so I would appreciate you not accusing me contradicting myself on this point again.

If someone is robbing a bank, and they hold a gun to a hostage's head and force her to collect the money, should she be charged with a crime? Most likely she will argue that she was being forced to cooperate with the will of the robbers. But according to you she had the option to say no. With such a clear choice available, should she be charged as an accomplice? The point is that saying "no" is an option. My point has nothing to do with assigning blame. The hostage is not to be blamed for obeying the bank robber. That's why I said in the beginning that angels don't have free will (the statement that caused all of this unnecessary fuss). They do what God wills. If what God willed were a crime, then God should be charged for it. If what God willed was an act of salvation, then God should be praised for it.


First of all, presenting an option is not the same as being coerced. In the scenario with God, the angels are being directly threatened... obey or die. It's a completely different scenario. If you are starving to death and I say "Eat this food," doesn't that also amount to "obey or die." I think you regard this as a completely different scenario, because this scenario involves an act of grace and kindness while the other involves an act of violence and exploitation. Much of your argument depends recharacterizing my view of God as a corrupt and sadistic authoritarian.

Second, it's not always irrational to refuse food. Okay okay... Hindus and hamburgers and hunger strikes... I was wrong. I should have made God a terrorist or something in my analogy.

Great!! Then what's all this trouble about being destroyed? I'm sure it would be impossible for a person to not do a SINGLE thing in accordance to God's will during their entire life! After an entire life, one should have more to show eternity than a "single thing".

Even accidently. Who is God going to destroy? No one has done everything wrong since birth. I never said God was going to destroy anyone.


What's the benefit? Good should be done for its own sake.

We've got eternal life already because we've done something right at some point in the past... and we'll probably do a few more things right in the future. One should strive for far more than a few things. Do you think that I think it's okay for a person to waste her life away as long as she does a few good things?

Why bother repenting for anything?
Repentance warrants forgiveness, which absolves a person of her sins so that she can achieve eternity.

I wasn't asking you to make a decision for God. I was asking why you thought he continues to use outdated revelations instead of providing some new insight. "Outdated" by your standard.


As I mentioned earlier, God's actions are not reliant upon your beliefs. Can you show that God is speaking to people all the time? Can you provide evidence of this communication? Why doesn't he speak to everyone? People do speak of it all the time. There is no evidence other than what they tell you. Further, I think God can speak to someone who doesn't even know it's God speaking to them. Perhaps, God does speak to everyone.


33,380 Christian denominations ([i]World Christian Encyclopedia[/i) shows our understanding is a little confused at best.
The basic principles of all these denominations are all different? How? (I wrote that we do not need "updated instructions" "if the basic principles remain the same and our understanding does not stray from them.")

I answered: "Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else."

You then changed your scenario to: I didn't change it; I made it more specific so that you might offer a more specific answer.

I stand by my answer. "Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else." I suggested she may have a family member with cancer (or possibly a history of cancer in her family) she may be more likely to donate money to cancer research because she sees the benefit. In that case she might... but I didn't write anything about a relative with cancer. Not everyone has (or knows) relatives with cancer.

Perhaps she has children, and if you quote figures showing that most of the homeless are under the age of eight, then she may empathize because she thinks of her own children. Perhaps she does have children, but let's assume that they're not homeless. There is no benefit for her to empathize with homeless children. Why should she empathize?

She may love animals, she may want to donate her money to an animal preserve, or a no kill shelter. Why should she love animals? What benefit does loving animals hold for her?

She may donate to Habitat for Humanity (or a similar charity) to help make homes for needy families. If it's not her family in need, why should she care?

She may donate to United Way because she wants to better her own community. This she might do. Depending on which community she lives in, though, the money might be better spent somewhere else. My question is how do get someone to look beyond their own interests?

Drop the false dichotomy, and don't put words in my mouth. Welcome to the club! :)

No where did I say (or allude) that it was better for her to blow her money in Vegas than it to feed the hungry. By saying her own interests are what is most important and by failing to show why feeding the hungry is of benefit to her, you did imply this.


it's possible to survive without eating meat.
we use and eat animals to survive. God doesn't need us for his own survival. Do we or don't we need animals for our survival?


No, you changed the wording to say what you want it to say. You subtly changed a direct requirment from Jesus into a likelyhood. Jesus said you COULD NOT become his disiple unless you hated your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, etc. You've altered to say "You may need to turn away from your family because they might not agree with my teachings."
How then should this be reconciled with Matthew 15:3-6?

The point of the verse you allude to is that a person had to be ready to "give up everything he has" in order to follow Jesus. The text itself says so.

Really? You've never mentioned Hell before. In fact you've said you don't believe in it. You've said that people who do not do God's will will cease to exist... where does "hell-fire" fit in? I've said hell is death. A literal place of eternal torture and torment, I do not believe in.

Jesus also said no one will have eternal life unless they call on him, you seem to be saying everyone can have eternal life, as long as some of their actions are in accordance with God's will. If "call on him" means to follow him, I agree. In righteousness, we do follow him. He is the standard.

But our moral sense varies by location... and you said morals which don't match your own are flawed. Now, it's my turn to say you put words in my mouth.

I'd consider that someone who took her morality a little too extreme! Extreme? Perhaps, but not in conflict with a basic set of principles I (and most of us) believe in.

By "pure word" I meant "not corrupted by man." No such thing. Words are ours. Since we are not perfect, they can't be either.

No interpolation, no human adaptations, etc. You're saying the "all-powerful" God can create the world, but the can't communicate clearly? No. I'm saying no word or set of words can sum up everything perfectly for everyone.

In the examples given, you've gotten upset at us for bringing up the OT, and you've stated we need to keep the historical and cultural contexts in mind, but until your last post you had yet to even attempt to explain the context of a single verse (although you did so by completely altering the meaning of the verse). Why should I undertake to offer contexts for all the verses in the Bible? expecially when I have a hunch that my interpretations will be written off as "completely altering the meaning of the text." Why undertake biblical interpretation in such a hostile environment? If I believed that your goal was to understand, I might. But I don't think this is your goal. Your goal is to show me why I'm wrong either for believing God exists or believing that God is good. As long as I carry these beliefs, your goal is established before I even write anything. So what would be the point of interpreting scripture here?

If two parts of the Bible clash, you will need to explain how they can be interpreted in order to eliminate the clash. I've answered this before by saying it would depend on the clash. You offered examples of contradictions I answered to the best of my ability (some pages ago). Now what?

Stating that the culture was different when it was written doesn't resolve the issue. What is the issue? Some statements in the Bible conflict with other statements. Some "holy books" conflict others. They all can't be right in every instance. I know this, because they all weren't meant to be applied to every instance and they all are not inerrant.

One could claim that the Qu'ran is a more recent revelation from God, and has therefore had less time to be corrupted by man, therefore it more accurately reveals God's will. A Muslim might argue this. And I might argue that its recency does not make it a greater authority on who Jesus is.

[north]

All religions claim to worship the correct God(s), but none really explain what they are.

It would be impossible for me to expect you to find an elephant without first providing you with a description of the creature... even if you did happen across an elephant, you would have no way of knowing if it was the creature you were looking for.

So here is my challange: Define a God.

(Merriam-Webster: God n: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality)


a true god is a being that lets another being, which is not at its level, not only the chance to grow to its level but encourages it, without influencing the lower beings thinking and growth to that point. and gives to this lower being credit where credit is due. as well does not divide the male and female of the lower beings, as in one is better or should have a higher value than another in their society. encourages emotional balance,knowledge, intelligence and encourages a Healthy attitude towards ones own being.

[John A. Broussard]

Our purpose is to alleviate and ultimately end suffering.
Got it!

You're saying that if there were no suffering for us to alleviate then there would be no purpose in life. And that's why god causes so much suffering. It's in order to provide us with a purpose in life.

Am I reading you correctly?

[John A. Broussard]

Chaupoline: 2. Why is there so much suffering in the world? Does this mean that God does not love me?

Your feelings are inconsequential. IF God wanted you to have a cushy life the world would not exist as it is. We also would not advance as a people. Humans are designed to be problemsolvers. What good would a world of no problems serve us? There is suffering to inspire us to become better.

Will there be any suffering in heaven to inspire the residents to become better?

In any event, I find it difficult to understand how your god can inflict so much suffering on human beings just to inspire them. Couldn't your god provide inspiration without the suffering?

My guess is that your god must enjoy watching people suffer. There's nothing like a little tsunami to destroy hundreds of thousands of homes, leave families bereft of their loved ones, and create devastation. I can't imagine how a supreme being could do something like that unless he/her/it was also a supreme sadist.

[Chaupoline]

Will there be any suffering in heaven to inspire the residents to become better?

Since I don't believe that we will ever leave the planet. Yes.

In any event, I find it difficult to understand how your god can inflict so much suffering on human beings just to inspire them. Couldn't your god provide inspiration without the suffering?

Nope.

My guess is that your god must enjoy watching people suffer. There's nothing like a little tsunami to destroy hundreds of thousands of homes, leave families bereft of their loved ones, and create devastation. I can't imagine how a supreme being could do something like that unless he/her/it was also a supreme sadist.

Tsunamis occur due to underwater earthquakes cause by tectonic shifts. They are a natural part of the planet and our reality. The tsunami that struck SE Asia was not a freak occurance. There have been tsunamis in the past and there will be tsunamis in the future. Therefore it is not a personal grudge against Asians.

[premjan]

Maybe it is a personal grudge against bad Muslims?

[Copper Scroll]

You're saying that if there were no suffering for us to alleviate then there would be no purpose in life. Our purpose is to drive this world toward perfection. If the world were made perfect for us, we would have no purpose.

And that's why god causes so much suffering. I didn't say God causes suffering. God is the First Cause, so in a sense God causes everything--pleasure and joy as well as pain and suffering. But when you say "God causes so much suffering" you imply that God is regularly intervening to hurt people. This does not happen.

It's in order to provide us with a purpose in life. God provides us a purpose in life by allowing us to participate in God's plan. We each have a role to play in it and the freedom to decide whether or not to play that role.

[AZSuperman]

This text was directed to the oppressor of Israel, Babylon. Its a nationalistic text, like much of the Old Testament, that is brutal by our standards. I won't defend it, but it reminds me a little of something....

You implied before that the purpose of our ethics is our own survival. You ordered what you mean by "our", I think: you, your family, your community, your world (in order of importance). Can we slide nation between community and world? Israel (rightfully) saw Babylon as a threat to its survival. By your standard, then, it would not be wrong for Israelites to want to destroy Babylonians.
Protecting yourself from an oppressor is not the same as wanting to dash their children against stones. The children are not the oppressors. Such an action would be purely an act of revenge. Does this happen in human cultures? You bet! Is it acceptable, or moral in any circumstance? No, I don't believe it is.

I never said that the Bible was a prerequisite for morality. I have some questions: Did I make up my ethics and morals? or did ethics and morality evolve and I inherit them?
Both. Morality is both an evolved trait and a learned behavior, just like our ability to communicate. Humans are pack animals, there is strength in numbers, so we tend to want to live in groups. Taken to it's most basic tenants, morality could be defined as not intentionally causing harm to others. This obviously serves a benefit to any animal who wishes to survive in a group. Killing, hurting, or stealing from others within that group could lead them to expell you, which will decrease your chances of survival in the wild. Your morals evolved to keep you alive. You develope your morals further based on the community in which you live.
If so, what is the end goal of evolution?
Evolution has no end goal. Evolution simply says those creatures with the best chance of survival will procreate faster than creatures with a lesser chance of survival. Here's a good example: Lions and antelope. Lions continue to evolve into more efficient hunters at the same time antelope continue to evolve into more elusive prey. The changes will continue for as long as both species exist. Neither animal will become the "perfect hunter" or the "perfectly ellusive" prey.

Who you call the victim here is the persecutor. God offers the option to live.Man isn't persecuting God. God sets the rules, God offers the option to live or the threat to be destroyed. (According to you) God will destroy anyone who doesn't do as he wants... this is persecution. By saying I don't believe in God, I'm not doing anything to go against him. I'm not persecuting him, but I will suffer the penalties of going against his will.

No. In reality, there is no gun.
Only the threat of death... which is all a gun represents.

Changing my tune? When did I write "God not only created physical death, but he destroys the soul of anyone who doesn't comply with his command 100%."
You said it right here in the text you quoted:
"21. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fullfillment of God's plan cease.
"22. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan cease.

Are you saying that whites are fundamentally different from (better than?) blacks?
No. I'm saying white slave owners used the same arguments toward blacks that you are using toward angels. I never said their arguments were valid, only that they are practically identical to yours.

Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. In your last post (for the upteenth time), you implied that I was contradicting myself by saying that someone could be forced to do something but still have a choice (the way the devil chooses to disobey God). The gun analogy was drawn to show that someone could be forced to do something but still choose to do something else (however irrational that choice). You have not said that you disagree with this, so I would appreciate you not accusing me contradicting myself on this point again.
Then I think you need to once and for all give a clear definition of "Free-Will" as you understand it. In my definition, free-will means you have the ability to make choices. You said the angels don't have free-will, but then later said angels could make choices. According to the definition of free-will which I am familiar with, this is a contradiction. The gun analogy shows how someone can be coerced into acting a certain way, but that person STILL has free-will. If you don't want to be accused of contradicting yourself, then please answer the following: 1) What is free-will? 2) Do angels have free-will?

The point is that saying "no" is an option. My point has nothing to do with assigning blame. The hostage is not to be blamed for obeying the bank robber. That's why I said in the beginning that angels don't have free will (the statement that caused all of this unnecessary fuss). They do what God wills. If what God willed were a crime, then God should be charged for it. If what God willed was an act of salvation, then God should be praised for it.
By my understanding of the definition of free-will, if the option to say no exists, then the person/entity in question HAS free-will. As I mentioned above, if you are working with a different definition of free-will, please provide it so there will be no confusion.
On a side note, I don't believe anyone should be praised for forcing someone to do something against their will, no matter how kind the act is.

If you are starving to death and I say "Eat this food," doesn't that also amount to "obey or die." I think you regard this as a completely different scenario, because this scenario involves an act of grace and kindness while the other involves an act of violence and exploitation. Much of your argument depends recharacterizing my view of God as a corrupt and sadistic authoritarian.
I rejected this scenario because the situation is completely different. We're not starving to death, looking for food. We're trying to live our lives to the best of our ability, and we're being told that we'll be destroyed if we don't do exactly what God wills. The angels likewise are not starving, they are living healthy lives, as were the fallen angels before they rebelled against God. You changed the scenario to one which make "coercion" into charity, but it completely changed the original situation.

After an entire life, one should have more to show eternity than a "single thing".I'm not disputing that, I'm asking what the point of worrying about it is if the chances are very likely that they will do something right (or have already done something right) which will already guarantee them eternal life?

I never said God was going to destroy anyone.
"21. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fullfillment of God's plan cease.
"22. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan cease.
If you believe destroying someone is different than causing a conscious agent to "cease" please explain the difference.

Good should be done for its own sake.
I agree.

One should strive for far more than a few things. Do you think that I think it's okay for a person to waste her life away as long as she does a few good things?
I'm focusing on YOUR definition of enternal life. The question is what benefit is gained by doing more than one good thing? Do you get a better eternal life? Do you gain more eternal life, if that is somehow possible?

Repentance warrants forgiveness, which absolves a person of her sins so that she can achieve eternity.But as long as she has done something good at some point, she'll have eternal life anyway, right?

"Outdated" by your standard.
How many other 2000 year old how-to manuals do you read?

People do speak of it all the time. There is no evidence other than what they tell you. Further, I think God can speak to someone who doesn't even know it's God speaking to them. Perhaps, God does speak to everyone.People also speak of aliens, faries, nymphs, Elvis, etc. Unless you're willing to accept their word as proof of these things existing, don't ask me to accept the existence of God simply because some people claim he talks to them.

The basic principles of all these denominations are all different? How? (I wrote that we do not need "updated instructions" "if the basic principles remain the same and our understanding does not stray from them.")
And I responded by showing that our understand is at best confused, which can be seen by the number of Christian denominations. The principles vary wildly! Some "Christian" churches will channel spirits and perform miracle healings, others consider such actions evil. Some churches speak in tongues and shake when they feel the spirit, others consider such manifestations to be from Satan.

There are over 10,000 separate religions (not including denominations of other religions). Christianity is only one of those 10,000 churches, and as pointed out earlier, it is divided into over 33,000 denominations. If you want to say our understanding of God's will is not confused, then I'm afraid you've got your work cut out for you.

I didn't change it; I made it more specific so that you might offer a more specific answer.
No, you created a false dichotomy to try to force my answer in a specific direction when it was obvious I had presented a solution to the problem.

I stand by my answer. "Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else." I suggested she may have a family member with cancer (or possibly a history of cancer in her family) she may be more likely to donate money to cancer research because she sees the benefit. In that case she might... but I didn't write anything about a relative with cancer. Not everyone has (or knows) relatives with cancer.
My answer is clear "Show her the benefit her family and her house gains by helping everyone else." Cancer research was just an example of how to do so, United Way was another, as was Habitat for Humanity, no kill shelters, animal preserves, etc. The idea wasn't to point out EVERY possible charity she could donate to. The point is that a person won't do anything to help everyone else if they don't feel they receive some benefit themselves. The benefit may be simply that it makes them feel good about it after words, or that they hope it secures them eternal life after death.
This she might do. Depending on which community she lives in, though, the money might be better spent somewhere else. My question is how do get someone to look beyond their own interests?
You expand their interests. By showing ways in which they can benefit from helping others. It's really not as complicated as you like to pretend it is.

By saying her own interests are what is most important and by failing to show why feeding the hungry is of benefit to her, you did imply this.
To her, her own interests are what is most important... Same as with you. I don't know if you feed the hungry, but lets assume you do. Why? Because it makes YOU feel good? Because it helps YOU gain eternal life? Because YOU think it's important? Because YOU think everyone should have a decent meal? Whatever your motivation is, it is centered around YOUR interests.

I didn't say nor imply that spending her money in Vegas was a better alternative. I provided alternatives to the options you provided. If you truely believe feeding the hungry is the ONLY alternative to gambling in Vegas, you need to get out more.

Do we or don't we need animals for our survival?
Ask that question to an insulin dependant diabetic. Without animal products they would die very quickly.

It still doesn't justify God's treatment of sentient creatures (angels).

How then should this be reconciled with Matthew 15:3-6?
It's interesting that you would use Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites because they don't kill disrespectful children to make your point about Jesus saying to love everyone.

The commandment says to "honour" your father and mother, which means obey them. Later he says you must hate them. I don't see the contradiction. It is possible to obey someone you hate.

The point of the verse you allude to is that a person had to be ready to "give up everything he has" in order to follow Jesus. The text itself says so.
Luke 14:25-26 "And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple
The text says you MUST hate your father, mother, wife, children, brethern, sisters, and your own life or else you CAN NOT be his diciple. It doesn't say you need to "be ready to" hate everyone. This verse says nothing about "giving up everything you have" (although others do). This verse says you must hate your family.

Since you don't consider the Bible inerrent, this is an easy fix, you cherry-pick around this verse and say it has been corrupted.

I've said hell is death. A literal place of eternal torture and torment, I do not believe in.So in Matt 25, when Jesus says "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." to the people who have not offered charity, he's not really talking about an everlasting fire? Of in Matt 13:50 when it's described as a "furnace of fire," with "weeping and gnashing of teeth," that's not true either? What about Mark 9:48 where it says the tormented won't die and the fire is not quenched?

If "call on him" means to follow him, I agree. In righteousness, we do follow him. He is the standard.
John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Following him has nothing to do with it, you need only believe in him... unless you want to cherry-pick around this verse, or alter it to say what you would like it to. You're welcome to do so.

No such thing. Words are ours. Since we are not perfect, they can't be either.So you're saying: No, God can create the universe, but he can't communicate clearly. Alright... I can accept that answer.

No. I'm saying no word or set of words can sum up everything perfectly for everyone.So God can't communicate clearly, or he chooses not to?

Why should I undertake to offer contexts for all the verses in the Bible? expecially when I have a hunch that my interpretations will be written off as "completely altering the meaning of the text." Why undertake biblical interpretation in such a hostile environment?
You're defending your views, and you're using the Bible to defend your views. If you want to use the Bible, and we can show places where it doesn't agree (or doesn't support the beliefs you're trying to use it to defend) then it's up to you to correct our misunderstanding. It's not up to us to try to force the Bible to bend to your beliefs. Most of us are VERY familiar with the Bible, and the historical and cultural contexts it was written in. If you believe you know it better than we do, then it's your responsibility to show us our error.
If I believed that your goal was to understand, I might. But I don't think this is your goal. Your goal is to show me why I'm wrong either for believing God exists or believing that God is good. As long as I carry these beliefs, your goal is established before I even write anything. So what would be the point of interpreting scripture here?
The goal of this thread was to try to determine WHAT a God is. It's impossible to honestly discuss something unless we're able to define it. Most of us are satisfied that we have done enough searching to conclude that God doesn't exist. We're not here simply to tell you you're wrong, but we will point out holes or inconsistencies in what you tell us. It's a discussion forum, not a pulpit, so we will make you aware of the problems we see.

I've answered this before by saying it would depend on the clash. You offered examples of contradictions I answered to the best of my ability (some pages ago). Now what?
We'll continue this way... If you provide a verse, and I provide another verse which disagrees, or an interpretation that disagrees, then you can offer an explanation as to why your interpretation (or your verse) is more reasonable.

What is the issue? Some statements in the Bible conflict with other statements. Some "holy books" conflict others. They all can't be right in every instance. I know this, because they all weren't meant to be applied to every instance and they all are not inerrant.
Therein lies the issue. People claim they are inerrant. Others claim God is omnipotent, but not capable of preserving his word from corruption. Stating that the culture was different when the books were written doesn't resolve the contradictions.

A Muslim might argue this. And I might argue that its recency does not make it a greater authority on who Jesus is.
Then you're at a dead lock. Unless you can provide any evidence that the Bible is a better authority then the Qu'ran. I will warn you, Muslims are almost as well versed on Biblical contradictions as atheists.

Wow... this response got long!!

[John A. Broussard]

I didn't say God causes suffering. God is the First Cause, so in a sense God causes everything--pleasure and joy as well as pain and suffering. But when you say "God causes so much suffering" you imply that God is regularly intervening to hurt people. This does not happen.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Now you've cleared up the confusion.

All the suffering that occurs in the world--the tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.--are not in any sense caused by god. These are just natural events he does nothing about. The countless people who lose their loved ones, are maimed for life, suffer incredible hardships are not god's doing. That suffering just happens.

As you say, god causes everything but doesn't intervene to hurt people.

That's a bit confusing, but I guess it explains human misery. God causes it but doesn't really cause it.

Thanks again for the clarity of your explanation.

[John A. Broussard]

So, no matter how much God intervenes to prevent suffering, that intervention will not be enough to eliminate it. If God intervenes to eliminate it, then what is our purpose in life?
Whoops!

I almost forgot the above.

The god who doesn't cause (or causes) human suffering (which he could eliminate but can't eliminate) does it to provide purpose in life.

That makes a lot of sense.

[AZSuperman]

1. Why is there so much inconsistency in the Bible?

I see the authors of the Bible much like modern day philosophers, scientists and theologians. However, modern theologians, scientists and philosophers do not have their writings inside one book that is considered modern thought. Can you imagine reading The modern book and being confused because Freud and Ptolemy do not match up with Hawkings and Pat Robertson. There would be even more confusion if the Gnostic texts were added to the Bible.
Modern day philosophers and scientist do not claim to have the ultimate answers to all of lifes questions. (some) Theologians claim the Bible is the ultimate answer.

If you believe the Bible is purely a collection of book speculating about the meaning of life, and the possibilities of an afterlife, then I have no argument with you. It's when someone claims the Bible (or any other Holy Book) is the perfect word of a perfect God that the inconsistencies become important.

2. Why is there so much suffering in the world? Does this mean that God does not love me?

Your feelings are inconsequential. IF God wanted you to have a cushy life the world would not exist as it is. We also would not advance as a people. Humans are designed to be problemsolvers. What good would a world of no problems serve us? There is suffering to inspire us to become better.
You're saying we live in a world full of suffering because God didn't want to create a "cushy life" for us? God wants us to suffer? How does a child being raped make us become better?

I don't believe that Heaven and Hell are seperate places from the world that we live in now. Some Christians believe that if you have lived a sinful life when you die you will go to hell, and if you were a good person in life when you die you will go to heaven. Either way you have eternal life. I believe that when you die you will be reborn on our planet as a newborn. If you were a sinful person, you will be reborn into the hell that you had a part in creating. In this belief system, Heaven and Hell exist but it is a diffrent way of looking at them. Either way you will have eternal life, but your afterlife will be dependent on how sinful all of mankind is.
It sounds like you would make a good Hindu.

3. What is God's plan?

God's plan isn't to spank you when you disagree with his will. The world will spank you when you mess up. These are the consequences of your mistakes. Human conflict comes in two forms. Man vs Nature and Man vs Man. You can blame God for creating a world of conflict all you want. It inspires us to learn that much more about the world and ourselves.
We don't blame God. It's difficult to assign blame to something you don't believe exists. Other than that, I agree with this statement.

God initially gave Adam one task. Name everything in the Garden of Eden. As simple as the statement is what it means to me is name and try to figure out everything in your environment. We are designed to think of things in an abstract way. God isn't punishing us. This is just the way that things are.
Thinking of things in an abstract way is hardly what people mean when they talk about punishment. God allows for much worse than simple abstract thought.

4. Why have we not heard from God in 2000 years?

I think God began talking to Mankind with Abraham so he could use the Tribes of Israel to wipe out the last remnants of the Nephilim in the Lands of Canaan. Through Moses and later Joshua he transformed the 12 tribes into a disiplined fighting force. However, they became to dependent on the system for protection and lost track of their morality. Jesus came to break up the system and get people to start focusing on morality and helping their fellow man again. Morality is not dependent on a knowledge of God though. Jesus came to help the Jews find their light again. Paul extended the message of Jesus to the Roman Empire.
So God didn't actually speak with Adam, Noah, or anyone before Abraham... Alrighty... Why would God need the help of a fighting force to wipe out the Nephilim? Apparently God's system backfired and he sent Jesus to clean up the mess... None of this answers why we haven't heard from God in 2000 years! Unless you're saying our focus on morality has been sufficient world wide, so God's intervention was no longer needed.

[AZSuperman]

a true god is a being that lets another being, which is not at its level, not only the chance to grow to its level but encourages it, without influencing the lower beings thinking and growth to that point. and gives to this lower being credit where credit is due. as well does not divide the male and female of the lower beings, as in one is better or should have a higher value than another in their society. encourages emotional balance,knowledge, intelligence and encourages a Healthy attitude towards ones own being.
When you say a god gives the lower being the chance to "grow to it's level" are you saying we can grow to become god's ourselves? That a god is simply a human who has progressed to a certain level?

[AZSuperman]

Tsunamis occur due to underwater earthquakes cause by tectonic shifts. They are a natural part of the planet and our reality. The tsunami that struck SE Asia was not a freak occurance. There have been tsunamis in the past and there will be tsunamis in the future. Therefore it is not a personal grudge against Asians.
Since God can't inspire without suffering, and suffering occurs naturally without God... What is the purpose of your God?

[AZSuperman]

Our purpose is to drive this world toward perfection. If the world were made perfect for us, we would have no purpose...
If we ever reach perfection, do we become useless? Once God's plan is fulfilled, and we're no longer needed to drive the world toward perfect, what then?

[Yahzi]

No. The limit of our knowledge is a consequence of our materiality. If we were not able to choose evil, we would not be able to choose at all.
But you asserted that Satan, who does not suffer from materiality or limited knowledge of God's will, did choose evil. Elsewhere you have strenously argued that mere coercion does not prevent choice. So why would full knowledge prevent our choice, if it does not prevent the angel's choice?

Do you understand you keep contradicting yourself?

Not reason alone.
What else should we use? Intuition? The same intuition that convinced most of the planet for most of history that people with a different skin color are sub-human?

If God wants people to live forever why would these traps be set? How is this consistent with my argument?
If God wants people to live forever, then why does he hide his will? If he gave us full knowledge of his will, then only a tiny few insane ones would choose evil. By making his will less clear, he makes the choice of evil easier. How is this not setting a trap?

Why is God entrapping us the way he did not entrap the angels? It is hard to resist the conclusion that the reason is because so few angels fell for the trap the first time...

The superiority of the white race is not so clear to me. If it were true that whites are somehow superior to blacks, that argument might carry weight.
Awesome. The only reason you object to race-based slavery is because the superiority of the master race isn't obvious enough.

Which implies that if we could indeed show the genetic superiority of white people, you would willingly allow yourself to be reduced to property, to be worked to death for no pay, to be told who to reproduce with and watch your children sold down the river like objects, and the entire time you would be telling your fellow slaves, "It's their right to do so, because they are superior to us!"

Have you ever considered using the moniker "Uncle Tom?"

A white man can't do anything I can't do by virtue of being white
So if we find something they can do, you are ready to surrender your entire personhood, all of your rights, your existance as a moral agent, just because one race has more power?

I think it is manifestly obvious that you would not do so. Thus, your argument is exposed as a dodge; a piece of bullshit you fling out to distract from the real argument.

If your point is that superior power allows one to enslave another, then perhaps you can explain why white people in America - who at one point wielded total power over black people - changed their minds. Do you think the black slaves won their freedom through their own efforts?

I resent your assertion that I have defended slavery.
Perhaps you should spend less time resenting it and more time refuting it. The sheer fact is, you have defended slavery, over and over and over. You have asserted that if a race of beings has more power, it has the right to utterly reduce another race of beings to property, stripping them of their innate moral agency. This is called "defending slavery."

I won't write on it any further.
Ah, yes, what a brilliant logical refutation. If someone shows that your position leads to distasteful conclusions, simply ignore them. With argumentative skills like that, I don't understand why you aren't on the Supreme Court, or running the country.

Hang on... for all I know, you could be...

This time, I am offended.
What you have typed in defense of your theology is offensive.

The first one is worded wrong. The freedom of our choice would be compromised if we had full and clear knowledge of God's will in every instance of our lives.
Are you saying the angels did not have "full and clear knowledge of God's will in every instance of their lives?"

The paucity of your response speaks volumes. Ordinary argumentative practice would have you correct the first assertion, then show how the argument is rendered sound. Instead, you merely change the first assertion, without bothering to address the obvious intent of the argument. Clearly, you are perfectly aware that you cannot continue the discussion on logical grounds.

This is not the first time the "incoherency", "inconsistency", or "self-contradition" of my beliefs about the angels (which has little to do with my central argument on this thread entitled "What is God?")
But your inability to surrender a position once it has been shown to be inconsistent has much to do with your central argument.

Let's (try to) be clear: Someone can be said to be forced to do something and still have the choice of doing something else.
How does this address the argument?

It is very simple. The contradiction is very plain and clear. You made 3 claims. Not all of them can be true. Therefore, you must surrender at least one of the claims as false, and retract it.

You have made the following assertions:

1.) Angels know exactly what God wants (either fully, or omnisciently, or totally, or full and clear knowledge of God's will in every instance of our lives, or however you choose today to say: angels know exactly what God wants.)

2.) Angels can choose.

3.) God cannot tell us exactly what he wants, because then we could not choose.

I predict you will fiddle with one or more of the assertions, complain about how people are focused on a side point, and then proceed to simply ignore the fact that you have contradicted yourself.

Perhaps you could explain why anyone should bother to discuss your main argument if you won't even surrender a side argument once it has been shown to be contradictory.

"Himself" was right
My apologies; I thought you had specified the issue before, but obviously I was wrong.

[Yahzi]

I think God began talking to Mankind with Abraham so he could use the Tribes of Israel to wipe out the last remnants of the Nephilim in the Lands of Canaan.
Great. Apparently our purpose in life is to be foot soldiers for God.

Would it be impolite to ask why God didn't just vaporize those Nephilim with lighting bolts? Could you perhaps explain why Almighty God required the help of bronze-age swordsmen in battling his enemies?

Through Moses and later Joshua he transformed the 12 tribes into a disiplined fighting force. However, they became to dependent on the system for protection and lost track of their morality.
God didn't forsee that? The American army has hardly "lost track of their morality," yet I think they clearly qualify as a "disiplined fighting force."

Can you explain why God cannot achieve what the US Army can achieve?

[Chaupoline]

Modern day philosophers and scientist do not claim to have the ultimate answers to all of lifes questions. (some) Theologians claim the Bible is the ultimate answer.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory are held by scientists to be sacrosanct. They cling to their beliefs just as tightly as theologians do. My statement is that the Bible was the ToIs collection of all their observations about the natural world, their moral views, and their metaphysical views.

If you believe the Bible is purely a collection of book speculating about the meaning of life, and the possibilities of an afterlife, then I have no argument with you. It's when someone claims the Bible (or any other Holy Book) is the perfect word of a perfect God that the inconsistencies become important.


You're saying we live in a world full of suffering because God didn't want to create a "cushy life" for us? God wants us to suffer? How does a child being raped make us become better?

It isn't God's fault, it is the child's parents fault.

It sounds like you would make a good Hindu.

I told you I Pick and Choose. This makes sense to me. I feel that it works best with the concept of the Abrahamic God.

Thinking of things in an abstract way is hardly what people mean when they talk about punishment. God allows for much worse than simple abstract thought.


So God didn't actually speak with Adam, Noah, or anyone before Abraham... Alrighty... Why would God need the help of a fighting force to wipe out the Nephilim? Apparently God's system backfired and he sent Jesus to clean up the mess... None of this answers why we haven't heard from God in 2000 years! Unless you're saying our focus on morality has been sufficient world wide, so God's intervention was no longer needed.[/QUOTE]

The three temptations of Christ were about the mistake of creating a dependency of the people on God through the church.

1. Transforming the Stones into Bread - You can control people by making them dependent on you for the necessities of life. This is a tool that the warlords in Somalia use to control the population. It is also not respectful of the population. Jesus' answered, "It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." The Word of God is not the authority of the church. It is the reality of the world that we live in. People need to work together to thrive in this world of conflict. Man vs Nature. People need to treat each other with respect and help each other. Man vs Man. This is the Word of God. This is what is continually stressed.

2. Miracles (throwing himself off the cliff in order because the angels would save him) - If the angels saved you from harm whenever you were in danger, there would be no consequences for your actions in the course of Man vs Nature. This is disrespectful to Mankind because we need consequences for our actions. God sent multiple prophets to the planet and the people didn't have a lasting change. When Babylon overtook Israel, enslaved the population
and destroyed the Temple of Solomon, Israel realized that there were consequences. However, when the Persians released the Jews they fell back into their old rut. There needs to be consequences and the quick save does not help us.

The Washington Consensus is a quick save policy for foreign development, but it does not help the people that it is supposed to. It just makes third world nations become dependent upon the United States, and opens them up for us to exploit their people.

3. Dominon over all the nations of the Earth - By turning down this temptation Jesus stated that organized state religion was disrespectful towards the practicioners of the religion. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's." Dostoevsky states as much in The Grand Inquisitor in the book The Brother's Karamazov.

I hope I am not coming across as preachy though. There hasn't been a need to say more because God corrected his problem through Jesus.

[Yahzi]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory are held by scientists to be sacrosanct.
Wrong.

They cling to their beliefs just as tightly as theologians do.
Wrong. Every scientist in the world will change their mind about evolution overnight; all you need to do is present the appropriate evidence.

Is there any evidence that will cause theologians to change their beliefs?

I told you I Pick and Choose.
Then you won't object when the KKK or the Nazis Pick and Choose their moral precepts.

I pick and choose the moral precept that anyone who cannot morally object to the KKK and the Nazis is morally bankrupt.

The three temptations of Christ were about the mistake of creating a dependency of the people on God through the church.
How does this answer the question of why God needed man's help in destroying the Nephilim? A full page of post in response to a simple question, and you don't even address the question?

I hope I am not coming across as preachy though.
You are coming across as deluded, incoherent, and arrogant. You spout fantastic notions and claims; when it is pointed out to you that they make no sense, you ignore any challenges or criticism and start a new speech on a different topic. So ya, that pretty much describes "preachy" to me.

[AZSuperman]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory are held by scientists to be sacrosanct. They cling to their beliefs just as tightly as theologians do. My statement is that the Bible was the ToIs collection of all their observations about the natural world, their moral views, and their metaphysical views.
They cling to the theory of evolution and the Big Bang because ther is substance there. There is observable evidence which backs up the theories. If some new evidence becomes available in the future, which disproves either theory, you'll watch the same scientists abandon the theories and search for a new explanation. That's how science works.

You're saying we live in a world full of suffering because God didn't want to create a "cushy life" for us? God wants us to suffer? How does a child being raped make us become better?It isn't God's fault, it is the child's parents fault.
You avoided every question I asked.
You're saying we live in a world full of suffering because God didn't want to create a "cushy life" for us? attempting to verify your previous statement in which you said "IF God wanted you to have a cushy life the world would not exist as it is."
God wants us to suffer? this is the logical conclusion if the answer to the previous question is yes
How dies a child being raped make us become better? This is a question posed so you can clarify your statement: "There is suffering to inspire us to become better.
I never asked who's fault it was. I want to know what benefit it served.

I told you I Pick and Choose. This makes sense to me. I feel that it works best with the concept of the Abrahamic God.
I appreciate people who pick and choose, it demonstrates an ability to think for yourself, and to reject absurd claims.

None of this answers why we haven't heard from God in 2000 years! Unless you're saying our focus on morality has been sufficient world wide, so God's intervention was no longer needed.

The three temptations of Christ were about the mistake of creating a dependency of the people on God through the church... I hope I am not coming across as preachy though. There hasn't been a need to say more because God corrected his problem through Jesus.
So God will remain silent unless we become to dependent on the church again? I for one hope that never happens.

Although you still avoided one of the questions: Why would God need the help of a fighting force to wipe out the Nephilim?

[Chaupoline]

How does this answer the question of why God needed man's help in destroying the Nephilim? A full page of post in response to a simple question, and you don't even address the question?

It doesn't. I was answering AZSuperman's question about why God allows suffering in the world. Mankind has a problem with people thinking that everything revolves around them and their needs.

Man needs to adapt to it's own environement. God had the Tribes of Israel eliminate the Nephilim instead of just doing it himself because Man needs to be able to protect itself.

I never asked who's fault it was. I want to know what benefit it served.

You are focussing on the individual. I am looking at the group. The benefit of tragedy comes from how the group reacts to that tragedy. If they work towards preventing that tragedy from occuring again, it is beneficial. If they forget about it, it will reoccur again.

Our purpose is to alleviate and ultimately end suffering.

So God will remain silent unless we become to dependent on the church again? I for one hope that never happens.

It had already happened with the Catholic Church, however Martin Luther rose up and broke up their monopoly on God. Under the old system there would be no dissent. Jesus was the one who paved the way towards disagreement in Judaism. I do not know when God will return. The Aztecs believed that they were preventing the end of the world with human sacrifices. If there are a finite number of souls and they are all reincarnated back into humanity at death, maybe Judgement Day and the end of the world will occur when all souls have bodies.

[AZSuperman]

You are focussing on the individual. I am looking at the group. The benefit of tragedy comes from how the group reacts to that tragedy. If they work towards preventing that tragedy from occuring again, it is beneficial. If they forget about it, it will reoccur again.
I believe that when you die you will be reborn on our planet as a newborn. If you were a sinful person, you will be reborn into the hell that you had a part in creating."
Doesn't that mean when a child is raped it's the childs fault? The child did something in their last life which "had a part in creating" the hell she was born into?

[John A. Broussard]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory are held by scientists to be sacrosanct. They cling to their beliefs just as tightly as theologians do. My statement is that the Bible was the ToIs collection of all their observations about the natural world, their moral views, and their metaphysical views.
I urge you to do some reading in the sciences before making these completely false pronouncements.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been challenged over and over again by science. As it stands today, the theory is very different from what Darwin envisioned--and will undoubtedly be much modified in the future. As one scientist said, Darwin opened the door to a new room and described wrong most of what was inside.

Where it takes religious cults centuries to catch up to reality (e.g., the Catholic Church didn't get around to allowing the faithful to read Copernicus for some three hundred years) science is continually challenging what you consider to be "cherished beliefs."

As for the Big Bang theory, try googling on it. You'll find scientists all over the place challenging it, modifying it and arguing about it. A far cry from the theologians who may just now (after some 2000 years) have gotten around to realizing that Joshua couldn't have made the sun stand still.

[Chaupoline]

Doesn't that mean when a child is raped it's the childs fault? The child did something in their last life which "had a part in creating" the hell she was born into?

It means that everyone is responsible for the child being raped. We all "had a part in creating" the hell that she was born into.

[Chaupoline]

I urge you to do some reading in the sciences before making these completely false pronouncements.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been challenged over and over again by science. As it stands today, the theory is very different from what Darwin envisioned--and will undoubtedly be much modified in the future. As one scientist said, Darwin opened the door to a new room and described wrong most of what was inside.

Where it takes religious cults centuries to catch up to reality (e.g., the Catholic Church didn't get around to allowing the faithful to read Copernicus for some three hundred years) science is continually challenging what you consider to be "cherished beliefs."

As for the Big Bang theory, try googling on it. You'll find scientists all over the place challenging it, modifying it and arguing about it. A far cry from the theologians who may just now (after some 2000 years) have gotten around to realizing that Joshua couldn't have made the sun stand still.

Yes, there are many denominations of scientists. The ones who believe in the Big Bang will not change their views, because someone has alternative evidence. Scientists do not all believe the same thing. Theologians do not all believe the same thing. Denominations are good for both sides.

[John A. Broussard]

Yes, there are many denominations of scientists. The ones who believe in the Big Bang will not change their views, because someone has alternative evidence. Scientists do not all believe the same thing. Theologians do not all believe the same thing. Denominations are good for both sides.
So now you've changed your mind. Scientific theories aren't sacrosanct as you earlier claimed.

Are there individual scientists who are close-minded? Of course. But eventually any of them who are active in their field bow to the facts. Wegener faced a lot of skepticism when he first came out with the theory of continental drift. I know of no geologist who challenges that view these days.

Plenty of theologians do, however. Because continental drift obviously negates the view that the world came into existence in 4004 BC.

Scientists change their minds because of facts.

Theologians do their best to not change their minds.

[John A. Broussard]

It means that everyone is responsible for the child being raped. We all "had a part in creating" the hell that she was born into.
That is patently ridiculous.

I will, however, listen to whatever possible explanation you can give for holding such a view.

[AZSuperman]

Yes, there are many denominations of scientists. The ones who believe in the Big Bang will not change their views, because someone has alternative evidence. Scientists do not all believe the same thing. Theologians do not all believe the same thing. Denominations are good for both sides.
Scientists get excited when they believe they have found an answer to one of the myriad of question, but cience is about finding the truth, not about being right. There are some close-minded scientists, but they are the minority. If someone has enough evidence to show why theory X won't work, even the most close-minded scientist will acknowledge they were wrong and will continue to seek the truth.

When the evidence is inconclusive, you will definately have scientists in different camps (denominations, as you called them). And you will have scientists bringing up new information to challenge old views, no one claims to be the "absoulte source of knowledge." They just present other possible solutions supported by the evidence.

As with continental dift, as mentioned by John, eventually everyone accepts the solution which is best supported by the evidence.

[Chaupoline]

So now you've changed your mind. Scientific theories aren't sacrosanct as you earlier claimed.

Are there individual scientists who are close-minded? Of course. But eventually any of them who are active in their field bow to the facts. Wegener faced a lot of skepticism when he first came out with the theory of continental drift. I know of no geologist who challenges that view these days.

Plenty of theologians do, however. Because continental drift obviously negates the view that the world came into existence in 4004 BC.

Scientists change their minds because of facts.

Theologians do their best to not change their minds.

There is dissent in both theology and science. Not all scientists are the same, and not all theologians are the same. I think the biggest problem is that the Abrahamics are old school philosophy. They merged their natural observations and modern philosophy into one. If the early Catholic church had separated the two, the world would have been better off and this wouldn't be an issue.

It means that everyone is responsible for the child being raped. We all "had a part in creating" the hell that she was born into.

That is patently ridiculous.

I will, however, listen to whatever possible explanation you can give for holding such a view.

Our societal group is defined by the support of its members. In a moment of tragedy, such as the rape of a young girl, there were things that led up to that rape. The same thing could be said about the tsunami that destroyed SE Asia. As a group we need to figure the causes of these tragedys and then prevent them effect from happening. With the young girl we prevent her from being attacked. From the tsunami, we figure out how to prevent the loss of life and the damage that it causes. It isn't enough to just be tough through tragedy and shrug it off. We need to figure out how to protect ourselves from future tragedies.

I believe that because we support the system in power we are responsible for its successes and mistakes. The United States eliminated TB from within it's borders. TB is returning to the the United States because of lax immigration laws. If someone in the US gets TB now the entire United States is at fault because they didn't prevent this from happening. Ignorance of the solution does not relinquish you from accountability.

Our purpose is to alleviate and ultimately end suffering.

[John A. Broussard]

Our societal group is defined by the support of its members. In a moment of tragedy, such as the rape of a young girl, there were things that led up to that rape. The same thing could be said about the tsunami that destroyed SE Asia. As a group we need to figure the causes of these tragedys and then prevent them effect from happening. With the young girl we prevent her from being attacked. From the tsunami, we figure out how to prevent the loss of life and the damage that it causes. It isn't enough to just be tough through tragedy shrug it off. We need to figure out how to protect ourselves from future tragedies.


Now, I understand.

We are now shifting the burden of suffering from god to you and me. God could do something about the suffering, but that would deprive us of the opportunity to alleviate that suffering.

That may be tough on the billions of people who've come before us and have had to suffer without our TLC, but that's just tough.

And as for the many who suffer in disasters these days, it's our fault for not providing them with more sandbags.

Yours is a strange philosophy, indeed.

[Chaupoline]

Now, I understand.

We are now shifting the burden of suffering from god to you and me. God could do something about the suffering, but that would deprive us of the opportunity to alleviate that suffering.

It would also make us forever dependent on God. The grace of God respects us enough that we will fix our own problems and have to rely on each other.

That may be tough on the billions of people who've come before us and have had to suffer without our TLC, but that's just tough.

And as for the many who suffer in disasters these days, it's our fault for not providing them with more sandbags.

There is always something that we can do to make things better. A defeatist attitude does not fix problems.

Yours is a strange philosophy, indeed.

My philosophy enables people to control their own destiny. The alternative is a philosophy of victimization. "It is nobodys fault" or "blame God" does not promote change.

[AZSuperman]

It would also make us forever dependent on God. The grace of God respects us enough that we will fix our own problems and have to rely on each other... There is always something that we can do to make things better. A defeatist attitude does not fix problems.... My philosophy enables people to control their own destiny. The alternative is a philosophy of victimization. "It is nobodys fault" or "blame God" does not promote change.
As I mentioned before, and you still haven't responded. Your philosophy is completely reliant on people taking care of people... Where exactly does your God come into play? In fact, if you took out the first 17 words in the quote above, you'd sound like most atheists.

[Chaupoline]

As I mentioned before, and you still haven't responded. Your philosophy is completely reliant on people taking care of people... Where exactly does your God come into play? In fact, if you took out the first 17 words in the quote above, you'd sound like most atheists.

Are you trying to convert me to atheism, or tell me that I am not a good Chrisitan? I stated that it is not a hindrance to believe in God. God inspires us to become better people. There is something greater than us out there that respects us and believes that we can become better. I am not a defeatist. I believe that humanity can become better. Humanists believe that the individual is the most impotant. I feel it is the group. I also feel that a totalitarian system does not respect the group as well.

Many atheists that I have come across, lose track of the group and focus instead on the individual. Secular progressives are a good example of this mentality. They may claim that they are supporting individuals rights but this does not benefit the individual it just appeases its desires. The group is not benefitted by pornography, drugs, or prostitution. Individuals do not benefit from any of these either.

[John A. Broussard]

It would also make us forever dependent on God.

Isn't that what's going to happen in heaven?

There is always something that we can do to make things better.

Don't you think there is something that your god could do to make things better? And wouldn't god do a much better job at that than we would?

My philosophy enables people to control their own destiny. The alternative is a philosophy of victimization. "It is nobodys fault" or "blame God" does not promote change.

In this instance, I agree with you. As long as leprosy was considered to be a curse from god, there was no attempt to find a cure. So long as lightning was considered god's smiting of the sinful, no one thought to do anything about it. Even after lightning rods were invented, the faithful opposed them.

So the blame lies not with god, but with those who believe a god exists and make it possible to shift blame to that non-existent being.

A belief in god has probably been the single, greatest barrier to humankind improving itself.

[John A. Broussard]

Many atheists that I have come across, lose track of the group and focus instead on the individual. Secular progressives are a good example of this mentality. They may claim that they are supporting individuals rights but this does not benefit the individual it just appeases its desires. The group is not benefitted by pornography, drugs, or prostitution. Individuals do not benefit from any of these either.

And individuals received little benefit from the banishment of slavery--which the bible and many religious leaders endorsed. Or from universal suffrage which gave women the right to vote, in spite of Christianity's tradition of keeping women "in their place." Or the spread of science which is still being attacked in the form of "intelligent design" by many religious groups in the U.S.

[AZSuperman]

Are you trying to convert me to atheism, or tell me that I am not a good Chrisitan?
I'm doing either. If you convert to atheism I'll be happy for you, but I'm out to convert anyone. I say how good of a Christian you are (or are not), because I don't know you. I'm simply pointing out that your previous statement sounds a lot like what atheists say. In fact, only the first 17 words would need to be removed to make it no longer have anything to do with a God of any kind.
It would also make us forever dependent on God. The grace of God respects us enough that we will fix our own problems and have to rely on each other... There is always something that we can do to make things better. A defeatist attitude does not fix problems.... My philosophy enables people to control their own destiny. The alternative is a philosophy of victimization. "It is nobodys fault" or "blame God" does not promote change.

Again, you ignored the question, (is this intentional?) so I'll ask it for the third time "As I mentioned before, and you still haven't responded. Your philosophy is completely reliant on people taking care of people... Where exactly does your God come into play?"

[John A. Broussard]

Again, you ignored the question, (is this intentional?) so I'll ask it for the third time "As I mentioned before, and you still haven't responded. Your philosophy is completely reliant on people taking care of people... Where exactly does your God come into play?"

Just as a guess, Chaupoline would probably argue that god provides the necessary suffering to make it possible for people to take care of people.

If god didn't create disasters of one kind or another, we'd just be sitting around twiddling our thumbs and would then move on to strumming harps in the next life. No misery, no suffering and no way for us to take care of people.

[Yahzi]

Mankind has a problem with people thinking that everything revolves around them and their needs.
See, when you openly declare you are not concerned with Mankind's interests, that makes you the enemy.

God had the Tribes of Israel eliminate the Nephilim instead of just doing it himself because Man needs to be able to protect itself.
Protect himself from what? The only thing that has been dangerous to man since we learned how to write are a) natural disasters and b) other men.

You are focussing on the individual. I am looking at the group. The benefit of tragedy comes from how the group reacts to that tragedy.
The ultimate statement of the Christian principle: you can profit from other's suffering.

Thank you, Chaupoline, for stating it so bluntly and obviously.

The Christian view of other people is that they are merely props in your own private morality play. If the humanist says, "Never treat people as means, but only as ends," the Christian says, "God created other people to be means for my ends."

This clear principle of Christian ethics is one of the best proofs that the entire system is morally repugnant.

Little children were hacked to death by machetes in Rwanda so that the rest of us could "react to the tragedy." A child is being raped and murdered somewhere in this world right now so that the rest of us can grow as moral beings. Glory to God!

Here is a hint: anyone who could justify the torture of children based on how it benefited himself is the ultimate example of selfish moral bankruptcy.

You should recuse yourself from any further discussions on morality, for you have demonstrated that you do not know what the word even means.

[Yahzi]

It means that everyone is responsible for the child being raped.
I didn't have a part in it. Anyone who asserts they are to blame for the rape of a child should be asked to provide an alibi for where they were that night. Perhaps your conscience is trying to say something?

Are you trying to convert me to atheism, or tell me that I am not a good Chrisitan?
{Edited} I am trying to tell you that profiting from the suffering of others is wrong, that everyone everywhere has always known this, and that your repudiation of this basic principle removes you from the realm of moral agency.

But of course, as a Christian, you wax estactic over the idea that some perfectly innocent man was brutalized and tortured to death, just so you wouldn't have to pay for the crimes you committed.

[Copper Scroll]

Evolution has no end goal. . But what would be the result of evolution as you've described it, as living beings either become more adaptive or go extinct?
If we ever reach perfection, do we become useless? Once God's plan is fulfilled, and we're no longer needed to drive the world toward perfect, what then? I think its an eternally unfolding process.

You said it right here in the text you quoted:
"21. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fullfillment of God's plan cease.
"22. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan cease. That doesn't say that God destroys. If anyone is the be blamed there, it's the conscious agent.


No. I'm saying white slave owners used the same arguments toward blacks that you are using toward angels. I never said their arguments were valid, only that they are practically identical to yours. But their arguments were wrong.


Then I think you need to once and for all give a clear definition of "Free-Will" as you understand it. I would define it differently than you have. You have defined it as the ability to make choices. I would say that any will (free or not) is the ability to make choices. The freedom of the will requires some degree of autonomy and independence.
1) What is free-will? 2) Do angels have free-will? I said that angels don't have free will because of their knowledge does not allow them to be as autonomous or independent as you and I.

I'm not disputing that, I'm asking what the point of worrying about it is if the chances are very likely that they will do something right (or have already done something right) which will already guarantee them eternal life? The part of them that has done "something right" will achieve eternity while the rest ceases. It's not an all or nothing deal. It never is. If you notice a flaw in yourself, you work to remove it--to eliminate it or to make it cease. But this flaw is a part of you--your personality, your pattern of thoughts and actions. By noticing it, you are Judging it, and by eliminating it, you are condemning it to Hell. You are eliminating this flaw because you are striving to make yourself a better person--you are striving for perfection.

The question is what benefit is gained by doing more than one good thing? So that more of you will achieve eternity.

But as long as she has done something good at some point, she'll have eternal life anyway, right? Yes, while the rest of her (either the majority or minority of her) won't.


How many other 2000 year old how-to manuals do you read? None, but the Bible's not a how-to manual either.

People also speak of aliens, faries, nymphs, Elvis, etc. Unless you're willing to accept their word as proof of these things existing,
I can't say with full certainty that these people are wrong. For the most part, I don't care.

don't ask me to accept the existence of God simply because some people claim he talks to them. Okay, I won't (and haven't).


And I responded by showing that our understand is at best confused, which can be seen by the number of Christian denominations. The principles vary wildly! There is a kernal they all share and understand. The diversity is what it is, but there is commonality not only among these churches but most religions and worldviews.

The benefit may be simply that it makes them feel good about it after words, Why should they feel good about helping people and receiving nothing for it? If a person wants to feel good, there are much easier ways of going about it than helping to build a house for a needy family.

You expand their interests. By showing ways in which they can benefit from helping others. It's really not as complicated as you like to pretend it is. It may not be, but there is a great number of things we could do to help others that hold no apparent or direct benefit for us. If there is some hidden benefit, you have not demonstrated it.

I didn't say nor imply that spending her money in Vegas was a better alternative. I provided alternatives to the options you provided. If you truely believe feeding the hungry is the ONLY alternative to gambling in Vegas, you need to get out more. Of course not. The question was a simple one, and you side stepped it. If you think that "feeding the hungry" is better than "gambling in Vegas", you have not explained how or why. I'm not saying they are the only two options, but you should be able to explain why one is better than the other.


Ask that question to an insulin dependant diabetic. I presume she would say "I need animals for my survival." But not everyone who kills, eats, or otherwise uses animals needs animals for their survival--right? If a person does not need to kill or exploit animals for his survival, how does he justify killing or exploiting them?

This verse says nothing about "giving up everything you have" (although others do). It doesn't because you took it out of context. See Luke 14:33.

So God can't communicate clearly, or he chooses not to?. God can communicate at least as clearly as we can. God can also choose not to communicate at all.

We'll continue this way... If you provide a verse, and I provide another verse which disagrees, or an interpretation that disagrees, then you can offer an explanation as to why your interpretation (or your verse) is more reasonable.
This sounds like a fun game and all, but I'll pass. There is nothing to be gained from it. I already know that there's contradictions.

Therein lies the issue. People claim they are inerrant. Others claim God is omnipotent, but not capable of preserving his word from corruption. Stating that the culture was different when the books were written doesn't resolve the contradictions. ...for you. I'm not bothered by them.


Then you're at a dead lock. Unless you can provide any evidence that the Bible is a better authority then the Qu'ran. I will warn you, Muslims are almost as well versed on Biblical contradictions as atheists. So the Muslim believes what he will and I will believe what I will. As long as we can agree on how we should conduct ourselves and relate to one another, we're okay. Are you the kid in the schoolyard yelling "Fight! Fight! Fight!"?

[Copper Scroll]

But you asserted that Satan, who does not suffer from materiality or limited knowledge of God's will, did choose evil. Elsewhere you have strenously argued that mere coercion does not prevent choice. So why would full knowledge prevent our choice, if it does not prevent the angel's choice? I didn't say that "full knowledge prevents our choice." I said it undermines the freedom of that choice.

Do you understand you keep contradicting yourself? I understand that you keep saying that I keep contradicting myself.


What else should we use? Ethics and morality.


If God wants people to live forever, then why does he hide his will? If he gave us full knowledge of his will, then only a tiny few insane ones would choose evil. By making his will less clear, he makes the choice of evil easier. How is this not setting a trap? The choice of evil must be possible in order for us to achieve. If this choice were eliminated, the achievment would not be ours.

Have you ever considered using the moniker "Uncle Tom?" If you were a more decent person, you would have kept this thought to yourself or not had it at all. I'm keeping plenty of thoughts to myself right this very moment.

If I were to answer that question yes or no, what would be your response? If the question were rhetorical, what response do seek from me?

I will respond: You don't have the right to level such a charge at me, whoever or whatever you are.

There are plenty of other places in your post that are revolting on a grander scale that I won't honor by quoting. I didn't come here for a discussion on race anyway. Do what you will and have the last word (however vile) on this issue. As I told you before, I don't care.

I thought you "declared victory and stopped" a long time ago. Try doing it three times all at once: "Beetlejuice beetlejuice beetlejuice" so that it can be real this time. I didn't come here to "declare victory and stop". I came to learn through argumentation, and the only thing I'm learning from you is exactly how insulting a person can be via anonymity.

Ah, yes, what a brilliant logical refutation. Let it serve that purpose if you've decided to ignore the points that were meant to serve that purpose.

Clearly, you are perfectly aware that you cannot continue the discussion on logical grounds. As clear as you want it to be.



You have made the following assertions:

1.) Angels know exactly what God wants (either fully, or omnisciently, or totally, or full and clear knowledge of God's will in every instance of our lives, or however you choose today to say: angels know exactly what God wants.)

2.) Angels can choose.

3.) God cannot tell us exactly what he wants, because then we could not choose.

I predict you will fiddle with one or more of the assertions, It should only be called "fiddling" if I actually did make all three assertions, but I did not make the third.

complain about how people are focused on a side point, and then proceed to simply ignore the fact that you have contradicted yourself. If it's so clear that I keep contradicting myself, why bother coming back for more contradictions? Say you win, be the champ, and go away.

[John A. Broussard]

AZS: No. I'm saying white slave owners used the same arguments toward blacks that you are using toward angels. I never said their arguments were valid, only that they are practically identical to yours.

CS: But their arguments were wrong.
And that's what you don't understand.

If they were using the same argument that you are using and they were wrong, then you are wrong also.

I'll be happy to explain further if you need further explanation.

[Yahzi]

That doesn't say that God destroys. If anyone is the be blamed there, it's the conscious agent.
Does the conscious agent choose to die? Does it commit suicide? Does it actively end its own existance? No, of course not.

Blaming the conscious agent for being terminated by God is an absolute perversion of the concept of blame. It's like blaming a shooting victim for their own death, because after all they could have gotten out of the way of the bullet.

But their arguments were wrong.
If their arguments were wrong, and your arguments are identical to theirs, then what does that make your argument?

I said that angels don't have free will because of their knowledge does not allow them to be as autonomous or independent as you and I.
And yet they have sufficient free will to choose evil, as Satan did. Your entire defense of why God cannot tell us his will is that then we will not have free will to choose evil, yet you freely acknowledge that Satan, who knew God's will, chose evil.

When presented with this contradiction, you simply ignore it.

The part of them that has done "something right" will achieve eternity...
Why should we even bother to read your speculations, given that you cannot resolve a fundamental contradiction in your position?

If we want to read made-up crap, we'll go to the fiction section of the library. This is a discussion board, not a story-telling forum.

I can't say with full certainty that these people are wrong. For the most part, I don't care.
You can't say with full certainty that faries don't exist. Yet your behaviour is identical to a person who fully assumes they do not. So what we have here is one thing coming out of your mouth, and something compeletly different coming out of your behaviour.

Leaving aside the absurdity of a grown man not knowing that faries are imaginary, what we have here is the spectacle of a man who says something that blatantly contradicts his every-day behaviour, solely so that he might avoid having face an issue in an argument. I think we all know what that is called. while the rules of the IIDB prevent me from specifying it by name, I think everyone involved can figure it out for themselves.

The diversity is what it is, but there is commonality not only among these churches but most religions and worldviews.
The only commonality they share is the embracement of the supernatural; the notion that there is an invisible world that is more important than the physical world. A rejection of reason, sense, and logic in favor of fantasy.

The communists, fascists, and New Age comet-chasers also share this trait, but I don't see you trumpeting their support.

Why should they feel good about helping people and receiving nothing for it?
Because they are moral? Why are you so surprised at the notion of a moral person? You seem to imply that you would never do something for someone else without reward. In fact, you react to the assertion that other people routinely do with surprise.

Every Christian eventually gets to this point - where they admit that they would never give to charity if it weren't for the gaurantee of payoff in heaven, that they would gladly steal from starving orphans if it weren't for the threat of punishment from on high.

How do we convince Christians that just because they are morally bankrupt does not mean everyone else is? It's like trying to teach a blind man what red is.

I'm not bothered by them.
Well, that explains a lot. If you aren't bothered by the Word of God having contradictions, why should you be bothered by the word of Copper Scroll having contradictions?

As consistent as it seems, this is also an example of what we discussed above. If your bank should justify the loss of your money with an argument that contained a contradiction, you would go ballistic. If you were sentenced to a crime based on a contradictory case from the prosecutor, you would feel wronged. In fact, should any other person ever defend their actions with contradiction, you would reject it. The only time you accept contradictions is when they favor you or your position. We know for a certain fact that you are being hypocritical; that you are asking us to accept your case with contradiction when you would not accept that from anyone else; that you are asking us to do what you would not.

As long as we can agree on how we should conduct ourselves and relate to one another, we're okay.
You can't even agree to be consistent and fair when dealing with us. When we point out contradictions, you ignore us; when we make compelling points, you say things you don't really believe; yet if we make a logical contradiction or insincere claim, you pounce on it with glee.

How about you start demonstrating you can conduct yourself appropriately on a message board, and then we'll think about letting you play with some Muslims.

[Yahzi]

I understand that you keep saying that I keep contradicting myself.
Are you seriously unable to see that you are contradicting yourself?

Ethics and morality.
Which are based on reason.

If you were a more decent person, you would have kept this thought to yourself or not had it at all.
Outrage is not an argument. If you object to the label, you are free to explain how it does not fit. My right to level such a charge is that your actions deserve the label. Your right to show this is not so is the only defense you are entitled to.

For example, you could show that since you are not yourself an angel, the label "Uncle Tom" cannot be applied to you for defending the enslavement of angels. This is a compelling argument that I must concede to. Therefore, I withdraw the charge that you are an Uncle Tom.

If the question were rhetorical, what response do seek from me?
The response I seek from you is to create enough cognitive dissonance, of such unpleasantness, that you decide to change your position. Recoginzing that you are, in fact, defending the rights of a slave-holder will presumabely outrage you so much that you might decide to stop.

From this you can conclude my basic assumption of your decency, since only a fundamentally decent person would be bothered by the idea of defending the rights of a slave-owner.

I will respond: You don't have the right to level such a charge at me, whoever or whatever you are.
My right stems from your words. I am sorry that you do not like what your words mean, but that is really not my problem.

There are plenty of other places in your post that are revolting on a grander scale that I won't honor by quoting. I didn't come here for a discussion on race anyway.
You didn't come here to discuss anything: you came here to say your piece, and have us listen in rapt attention. But you see, this is a dialogue board, so when you present arguments about angels and people that you find offensive when presented about black people and white people, I am in fact entitled to present those offensive arguments, and you are bound by the rules of reason and politeness to respond to them.

As I told you before, I don't care.
Again you respond to contradiction and dissent by simply asserting you don't care.

I thought you "declared victory and stopped" a long time ago.
It's true, I gave up any hope of actually changing your mind. Which probably accounts for the less than polite tone of my later responses. At this point I am merely making fun of your absurdities, for the sake of the audience.

I came to learn through argumentation, and the only thing I'm learning from you is exactly how insulting a person can be via anonymity.
If you came to learn through argumentation, then why are you ignoring the contradiction in your argument that I pointed out?

All of this sniping started when I refuted your argument by pointing out the contradiction, and you responded by ignoring me. Do you have any idea how insulting it is to be in a conversation, nail a contradiction to the wall, and have the other person say, "I don't care about contradictions?"

If you would like to stop sniping, and start discussing, then kindly respond to the contradiction I have repeatedly pointed out.

For the sake of politeness, I will repeat that contradiction here:

1) You asserted that full knowledge of God's will "undermines" our ability to choose.

2) You asserted that the angels have full knowledge of God's will.

3) You asserted that at least one angel, Satan, chose evil despite knowing God's will.

4) You acknowledge humans do not have full knowledge of God's will.

If it is possible for us to know God's will and still choose evil (as 3 states), then why does God hide his will from us? The only possible conclusion is to make it easier for us to choose evil. You defended God hiding his will from us (4) by saying that it was necessary so that we might choose, but then you acknowledged that choice is possible even with full knowledge (3).

In other words, you have not shown why God must hide his will from us. The rest of your argument rather severely depends on explaining this, so there is no point in discussing any of your theology until you pass this first, basic hurdle.

Does full knowledge of God's will prevent choice? If yes, then how did the angels choose; if no, then why doesn't God give us full knowledge of his will?

There are several ways out of this: you can retract the claim that the Angels have full knowledge of God's will, you can retract the claim that Satan chose, you can retract the claim that knowledge of will destroys choice. But of course you cannot retract any of these claims without pulling down the entire edifice of your theology. Which is why this question is in fact central to your argument.

It should only be called "fiddling" if I actually did make all three assertions, but I did not make the third.
Since I have given up any hope of serious discussion from you, I won't bother tracking down the quote in which you said the above. After all, you have been known to argue that "force" and "compel" don't mean "remove choice."

I am sure the audience (assuming there is one. which seems like a stretch) has read enough of your posts to know that you did, in fact, assert that full knowledge of God's will eliminates choice.

I didn't say that "full knowledge prevents our choice." I said it undermines the freedom of that choice.
Changing "prevents" to "undermines" at this point in the argument is just embarrasing. Any knowledge of God's will undermines our freedom of choice, yet you are not arguing for agnosticism. Your oriignal position was not that full knowledge makes it harder for us to chose evil, but rather that it makes it impossible, which is why God cannot give it to us. This is the position you have to hold: otherwise, you are in the bizarre position of asserting that God makes it easier for people to chose wrongly and thus go to Hell.

If it's so clear that I keep contradicting myself, why bother coming back for more contradictions? Say you win, be the champ, and go away.
If I didn't do it, someone else would have to. Your blatant contradictions cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

However, please be assured that it requires very little energy on my part. Seriously considering your claims in the beginning required some effort, but now that all I do is repeat the same logical contradiction over and over, I can watch TV while I'm doing it. Thank you for your concern, but it's ok, really.

God forbid you should ever actually chose to respond logically; then I might have to pay attention.

[Copper Scroll]

how some people make the most out of anonymity and distance...
If they were using the same argument that you are using and they were wrong, then you are wrong also.

If their arguments were wrong, and your arguments are identical to theirs, then what does that make your argument?
My argument about angels is not the same as the argument whites used for slavery. The latter is based upon the belief that whites are superior. My arguement about angels is not based on that.
Why are you so surprised at the notion of a moral person? You seem to imply that you would never do something for someone else without reward. You are obviously unaware of the context in which my line of questioning for Clark Kent was written. My point is not that Christianity is required for morality.
If you aren't bothered by the Word of God having contradictions, why should you be bothered by the word of Copper Scroll having contradictions? If you mean the Bible by "Word of God", I'll remind you that it is not a monolith nor is anything in inerrant.
Are you seriously unable to see that you are contradicting yourself? No, you are unable to show me how.


Which are based on reason. Wrong.

The response I seek from you is to create enough cognitive dissonance, of such unpleasantness, that you decide to change your position. Oh... I see now. You mean to insult me so that I get so mad that I change my position. You hope that outrage will derail my reasoning. Has this worked for you often in the past?

You didn't come here to discuss anything: you came here to say your piece, and have us listen in rapt attention. If I said this to you, you would start whining about your "integrity".

Again you respond to contradiction and dissent by simply asserting you don't care.
When I said "I don't care" I wasn't responding to any charges of contradiction. I was responding to you "declaring victory and stopping" which you are still more than welcome to do.

At this point I am merely making fun of your absurdities, for the sake of the audience. There are plenty of other things that could entertain them more (if "they" even exist). How about "your mama" jokes?
"I don't care about contradictions?" When did I say that? Are you going to say "I'm not looking up that post, because I'm only here to make fun of you now"?

If you came to learn through argumentation, then why are you ignoring the contradiction in your argument that I pointed out? You keep changing my contradiction everytime I respond to it. After I respond you say I've ignored it and you alter it. Here you've done it again:

For the sake of politeness, I will repeat read:
"amend"

that contradiction here:

1) You asserted that full knowledge of God's will "undermines" our ability to choose.

2) You asserted that the angels have full knowledge of God's will.

3) You asserted that at least one angel, Satan, chose evil despite knowing God's will.

4) You acknowledge humans do not have full knowledge of God's will


If it is possible for us to know God's will and still choose evil (as 3 states), then why does God hide his will from us? I never said God hides his will or #1.

Does full knowledge of God's will prevent choice? No. if no, then why doesn't God give us full knowledge of his will? So that our choice will be made freely.

There are several ways out of this: you can retract the claim that the Angels have full knowledge of God's will, naw
you can retract the claim that Satan chose, naw
you can retract the claim that knowledge of will destroys choice. This claim is not mine to retract, because I never made it.

Changing "prevents" to "undermines" at this point in the argument is just embarrasing. There is no change if I never said "prevents".

If I didn't do it, someone else would have to. Your blatant contradictions cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. I guess that I should thank you.

However, please be assured that it requires very little energy on my part. That's great to know. It would be a shame if you had to strain in pushing out this kind of shit.
Seriously considering your claims in the beginning required some effort, but now that all I do is repeat the same logical contradiction over and over, I can watch TV while I'm doing it. And I suppose that over and over again I will hear that I have ignored the contradiction, while it is plain that I have answered it everytime and you return again with a new version of it. I guess I should be excited about seeing the next upgrade.

[Gawen]

Tempers folks....let's watch our tempers.
Let us take a collective breather here and collect our wits along with it.

[Chaupoline]

Isn't that what's going to happen in heaven?

I don't believe that Heaven and Hell are seperate places from the world that we live in now. Some Christians believe that if you have lived a sinful life when you die you will go to hell, and if you were a good person in life when you die you will go to heaven. Either way you have eternal life. I believe that when you die you will be reborn on our planet as a newborn. If you were a sinful person, you will be reborn into the hell that you had a part in creating. In this belief system, Heaven and Hell exist but it is a diffrent way of looking at them. Either way you will have eternal life, but your afterlife will be dependent on how sinful all of mankind is.


Don't you think there is something that your god could do to make things better? And wouldn't god do a much better job at that than we would?

It isn't the destination that is important. It is the journey. Our purpose lies in our need to solve problems and understand things.

So the blame lies not with god, but with those who believe a god exists and make it possible to shift blame to that non-existent being.

We need to fix the problem and not the blame.

A belief in god has probably been the single, greatest barrier to humankind improving itself.

A belief in God has been the inspiration for humankind improving itself.

And individuals received little benefit from the banishment of slavery--which the bible and many religious leaders endorsed. Or from universal suffrage which gave women the right to vote, in spite of Christianity's tradition of keeping women "in their place."

Christians were also the driving force behind the abolishment of slavery and women's suffrage. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian Minister. Everyone benefitted from the abolishment of slavery, because our society benefitted from it's abolishment.

Or the spread of science which is still being attacked in the form of "intelligent design" by many religious groups in the U.S.

Scientists get excited when they believe they have found an answer to one of the myriad of question, but cience is about finding the truth, not about being right. There are some close-minded scientists, but they are the minority. If someone has enough evidence to show why theory X won't work, even the most close-minded scientist will acknowledge they were wrong and will continue to seek the truth.

When the evidence is inconclusive, you will definately have scientists in different camps (denominations, as you called them). And you will have scientists bringing up new information to challenge old views, no one claims to be the "absoulte source of knowledge." They just present other possible solutions supported by the evidence.

Intelligent Design is an alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Stating that ID is a religious attack against science is the same as saying that Evolution is a scientific attack against religon. I was under the impression that the debate is about finding the truth and not about being right. I was also told that scientists do not hold the Theory of Evolution to be sacrosanct.

Again, you ignored the question, (is this intentional?) so I'll ask it for the third time "As I mentioned before, and you still haven't responded. Your philosophy is completely reliant on people taking care of people... Where exactly does your God come into play?"

God is our inspiration. In Genesis, God instructed Adam to name everything in the Garden of Eden. This defines our initial purpose, observe and try to understand everything in the world. Humans are given the tools to do this through our ability of abstract thought.

Eve was made to be a companion for Adam and together they are whole. Mankind is designed to interact and work in conjunction with one another to make the world better.

These are examples of how God and religion acts as an inspiration and focus for mankind. As can be seen religion is a powerful focus in peoples lives. The validity of the religion or denomination is how their message is intrepreted. There has been people in the past and present that use religion to manipulate people to do what they want them to do by claiming a belief in God. There has also been people that have invoked God to make changes for the good of mankind. But as I have stated earlier, this isn't bad religion, this is bad people. Religion is not even needed as can be seen in the atheistic Soviet Union.

The belief in God is the belief in something more powerful that us. It is the belief that there is an Absolute Truth and therefore an Absolute Morality. Disregard the dogma of the diffrent faiths, and instead focus on the quest that has been given to us by God. Understand the world around us, respect each other, and come up with a system that benefits everyone. Atheists want to accomplish these same goals but they lack the same focus.

Protect himself from what? The only thing that has been dangerous to man since we learned how to write are a) natural disasters and b) other men.

The Grigorii were the creators of the Nephilim and were the biggest threat to us.

The ultimate statement of the Christian principle: you can profit from other's suffering.

No, the ultimate statement is that we learn from the tragedy and work towards preventing it from happening again.

I didn't have a part in it. Anyone who asserts they are to blame for the rape of a child should be asked to provide an alibi for where they were that night. Perhaps your conscience is trying to say something?

Your support of society the way it is now is the reason that the young girl was raped. You didn't rape her personally but the society that you support allowed this to be possible. That is why we are all responsible.

Tragedy displays a weakness in our system. By fixing the weakness everyone profits from the tragedy, because it will not happen again.

The Christian view of other people is that they are merely props in your own private morality play. If the humanist says, "Never treat people as means, but only as ends," the Christian says, "God created other people to be means for my ends."

This clear principle of Christian ethics is one of the best proofs that the entire system is morally repugnant.

Straw Man. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

[John A. Broussard]

If you notice a flaw in yourself, you work to remove it--to eliminate it or to make it cease.
Yes, we should take our cue from god, since we have been created in god's image.

Now the 18th Century Lisbon earthquake killed 75,000 people, maimed many thousands more and rendered tens of thousands homeless.

God saw the flaw. See how the Pakistan earthquake with 250,00 dead (and still dying) is a correction of that flaw?

[John A. Broussard]

A belief in God has been the inspiration for humankind improving itself.

As in the case of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the killing of Protestants by Catholics (and vice-versa) in Northern Ireland, the religious wars of the 16th Century, the Sicilian Vespers, the pogroms---yes, indeed, god has been the inspiration for humankind improving itself.

Incidentally, yours is a very different brand of Christianity. Do you base your belief in reincarnation on the bible? If so, I'd appreciate knowing the reference.

Thanks.

[Chaupoline]

As in the case of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the killing of Protestants by Catholics (and vice-versa) in Northern Ireland, the religious wars of the 16th Century, the Sicilian Vespers, the pogroms---yes, indeed, god has been the inspiration for humankind improving itself.

Incidentally, yours is a very different brand of Christianity. Do you base your belief in reincarnation on the bible? If so, I'd appreciate knowing the reference.

Thanks.

Origien of Alexandria, a 3rd century Chrisitian scolar was the first to propose reincarnation and a finite number of souls in the Christian religion. Religion has been used as an excuse for conflict, because of peoples needs for power. They apparently weren't inspired by God, they failed the third temptation of Christ.

[north]

Origien of Alexandria, a 3rd century Chrisitian scolar was the first to propose reincarnation and a finite number of souls in the Christian religion. Religion has been used as an excuse for conflict, because of peoples needs for power. They apparently weren't inspired by God, they failed the third temptation of Christ.

they were inspired by god. they were inspired by gods power and wanted to emulate gods power. we are after all, at least according to the bible in the image of god. thats what god failed to take into account, for us to be like him. that is his one of many failings.

Eve by the way wanted to be able to do more than just "name" things, Eve wanted "KNOWLEDGE and therefore understanding of things".

[Chaupoline]

they were inspired by god. they were inspired by gods power and wanted to emulate gods power. we are after all, at least according to the bible in the image of god. thats what god failed to take into account, for us to be like him. that is his one of many failings.

The desire for power over others, is our failing. God doesn't want us to be dependent on him. Jesus rejected the three temptations.

Eve by the way wanted to be able to do more than just "name" things, Eve wanted "KNOWLEDGE and therefore understanding of things".

Eve's failing though was that she didn't want to figure it out for herself, she wanted it to just be given to her. Knowledge and understanding of things comes after the naming (generation of abstract concepts and categories).

[John A. Broussard]

Religion has been used as an excuse for conflict, because of peoples needs for power.
And here I thought religion was supposed to make one a better person. Now you're saying it's used as an excuse for conflict.

Wouldn't you say that any belief that leads to mass slaughter is evil, whether it's used as an excuse or is merely the expression of true faith?

Do you feel that god was justified in ordering the Israelites to slaughter their neighbors but to save out the virgin girls for later raping by the soldiers?

If god orders mass slaughter, how can that be considered to be a human excuse for conflict?

I look forward to your answers.

[Copper Scroll]

Straw Man. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. I didn't know this had a name, but always thought it should--seeing how popular it is around here.

[John A. Broussard]

I didn't know this had a name, but always thought it should--seeing how popular it is around here.
Examples, from "around here?"

[Yahzi]

A belief in God has been the inspiration for humankind improving itself.
No it hasn't. A belief in humanity, and that it is possible to improve things, has been the inspiration for improvement.

Christians were also the driving force behind the abolishment of slavery and women's suffrage.
And they were the driving force behind the practice of slavery and women's suffrage. At that time the bulk of the Western world was Christian, so by mathematical logic they had to be the driving force of everything.

Stating that ID is a religious attack against science is the same as saying that Evolution is a scientific attack against religon.
No it isn't. Go read the court decision.

These are examples of how God and religion acts as an inspiration and focus for mankind.
You mean, these are examples of how God and religion pervert and constrain human nature. Asserting that we have dominion over the animals because we can name them, claiming that women are made from men to be their helpers, etc.

The belief in God is the belief in something more powerful that us.
Why should humanity be improved by groveling before some other being? How does groveling make us better persons?

It is the belief that there is an Absolute Truth and therefore an Absolute Morality.
There is no absolute truth or morality. There is objective truth and morality, and really, that's quite good enough.

Disregard the dogma of the diffrent faiths, and instead focus on the quest that has been given to us by God. Understand the world around us, respect each other, and come up with a system that benefits everyone.
We are. It is called science. And the most valuable truth we have uncovered is we can't count on God for anything, so there's no point in even talking about him.

The Grigorii were the creators of the Nephilim and were the biggest threat to us.
Your fantasy world has promise. You should write down the details.

Your support of society the way it is now is the reason that the young girl was raped. You didn't rape her personally but the society that you support allowed this to be possible. That is why we are all responsible.
What makes you think I support society? What makes you think I do not rail against those elements of society with every fiber of my being?

It has not occurred to you that perhaps I lack the power to remold society in my own image. Like with natural disasters and disease, you simply assume that everything is within our power to change. You accuse us of egotism because we do not acknowledge a higher power, but you presume that human beings can ultimately control everything.

True humility does not lie in false groveling to imaginary boogey-men; it lies in admitting what we can and cannot do. It lies in acknowledging where our power stops, not in pretending we are responsible for (and thus have power over) everything.

Tragedy displays a weakness in our system. By fixing the weakness everyone profits from the tragedy, because it will not happen again.
"Never again!" they cried after the Holocaust, and yet... Rwanda, Bosnia. One every 20 years or so. Does that sound like fixed to you?

Straw Man.
We know what a straw man is. However, you have not shown how my position is a straw man.

You made the bold claim that the group profits from the tragedy of the individual. I pointed out that meant that individuals in the group therefore profit from the tragedy of other individuals. What part of that do you dispute?

[Yahzi]

I didn't know this had a name, but always thought it should--seeing how popular it is around here.
The "straw man" fallacy is a very common one, used by politicians and demagogues with abandon. There are many other fallacies that are so common they have been named.

Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)

However, merely crying "straw man" does not actually constitute a defense. One must show how the opposition has falsely characterized your position.

Also, sadly, the act of simply ignoring contradictions does not have a name. I'm not sure why, but I think it is because doing so is not a logical fallacy; it is the wholesale rejection of logic.

[John A. Broussard]

Christians were also the driving force behind the abolishment of slavery and women's suffrage. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian Minister. Everyone benefitted from the abolishment of slavery, because our society benefitted from it's abolishment.
"Christians were also the driving force behind the abolishment of slavery and women's suffrage."
I think you are saying that some Christians opposed slavery and that some were in favor of women suffrage. Hardly "driving forces."

"The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian Minister."
And, in his day, neither he nor any of his black congregation were allowed into most southern Protestant churches.

Oh, incidentally, you might care to read the judge's 139-page decision re Intelligent Design in the Dover Pennsylvania schools. He lists case after case where Christians lied in order to get the superstition of ID presented in the schools.

[Yahzi]

how some people make the most out of anonymity and distance...
Do you really think anonymity and distance are a factor here? I would say exactly the same things to your face. The only person whose behaviour would change in person is yours; because (I am certain) you are too polite to simply ignore someone else's point in person.

My argument about angels is not the same as the argument whites used for slavery. The latter is based upon the belief that whites are superior. My arguement about angels is not based on that.
Are you saying your argument for slavery is not based on God being superior to the angels?

You seem to have real difficulty with a standard technique we are employing here. You make an argument, and cite a specific set of facts that supports it. Then we recast the argument, using the same logic, but a different set of facts. (For example: you say God can enslave angels because He is superior, so we say whites can enslave blacks because they are superior.) You then complain that we changed the facts.

The entire point of symbolic logic is that it does not matter what the propositions are. "If A, then B; if B, then C; therefore, if A, then C" is true regardless of what A,B, and C stand for. So we are always going to take your arguments and substitute different A,B, and C's. If you find the resulting argument to be repugnant, then by the laws of logic, you must admit your original argument was equally repugnant.

That is why we keep harping on the race issue. You have made it clear that you reject any line of argumentation that leads to whites enslaving blacks (and of course, we completely agree with you on that!). What you have failed to do is explain why you won't reject the same line of argument when God and angels are subsituted for whites and blacks.

Really, you will find this to be the entire point of every objection you ever encounter from any atheist: why do you give God a special exemption? Why do the arguments you support, the logic you defend, suddenly change when God is one of the subjects? Why is it vile slavery for a superior race (whites) to enslave an inferior one (blacks), but ultimate justice for a superior race (God) to enslave an inferior one (angels)?

[Of course, whites are not superior to blacks; but that is not relevant, since you would object to whites enslaving blacks even if it could be shown that whites were objectively superior. And of course, we all completely agree with that too. A moral agent is a moral agent and deserves moral rights regardless of how much power or superiority it wields. Children, after all, have very little power, but no one suggests that entitles adults to enslave them.]

Wrong.
If ethics and morality are not based on reason, then what are they based on?

You mean to insult me so that I get so mad that I change my position.
Speaking of straw men... that's not quite what I said. What I said was I mean for you to be so repulsed by your own actions that you change them. The reason this works is because I do not need to create the repulsion; I need merely paint you into a corner until you recognize what you are actually saying.

You hope that outrage will derail my reasoning. Has this worked for you often in the past?
Can you think of any other way for me to get you to stop spouting defenses for slavery?

If I said this to you, you would start whining about your "integrity".
Touche. I retract my speculation on your motives.

When did I say that? Are you going to say "I'm not looking up that post, because I'm only here to make fun of you now"?
Yes, I will no longer look up your posts for quotes. I did that once, and the response was wholly unsatisfactory.

You keep changing my contradiction everytime I respond to it.
If I am unable to paraphrase your argument to your satisfaction, that implies that one of us does not understand your argument.

I might point out that you keep changing the details of the words you used, without responding to the actual thrust of the argument. Now your defense is that you never said God hides his will. This is a clear contradiction of your claims that God does not allow us to know his will fully, as the angels do. Perhaps you will claim God does not hide his will, he merely uses his omnipotence and omniscience to make sure we are unable to discover it fully. This would be in keeping with your arguments that "force" and "compel" do not mean "constrain choice."

Instead of forcing me to type the argument out over and over, and then complaining about individual sentences, why don't you just answer the question:

1. Why can't God share full knowledge of what He wants with us?

I presume you will answer that full knowledge would constrain our choice. Which leads to the next question:

2. Can angels choose, despite having their choice constrained?

Which you have already answered "yes" to, citing the example of Satan. And this brings us to the contradiction:

3a. If choice is still possible with full knowledge, then why do we have to choose with less knowledge? Doesn't that just make it easier for people to fail?

or alternatively,

3b. Why does God share any knowledge of his will with us? Wouldn't any knowledge constrain our choice? Thus, shouldn't we make our choice in complete ignorance of God's will?

Oh look, I typed it again anyway. I look forward to seeing which sentence you decide to complain about, while simply ignoring the obvious point set forth.

This claim is not mine to retract, because I never made it.
Right, you said it forced and compelled people's choice, not eliminated it. You will be happy to see that my latest incarnation of your argument merely uses "constrains," so this objection over "prevents" is no longer valid.

I guess that I should thank you.
You should. I have demonstrated incredible patience with you, repeating myself over and over in different forms, hoping to find the one you can relate to and understand.

That's great to know. It would be a shame if you had to strain in pushing out this kind of shit.
You just spent half a page whining that "constrain" is not the same as "prevents," and you call my posts shit? How about you acknowledge the actual point, and address what my argument means, instead of playing word-definition games?

And I suppose that over and over again I will hear that I have ignored the contradiction, while it is plain that I have answered it everytime
It is not plain. Take a poll, if you like: I predict it will demonstrate that it is not plain that you have answered the contradiction.

and you return again with a new version of it.
I don't change the version of the argument; you do, by asserting that words you used don't mean what everyone else means by them. The essential point of my argument - that you cannot defend God's silence by resorting to the neccessity of silence for choice, since you already conceded silence was not necessary for the angels to choose - remains wholly unaddressed by you.

I guess I should be excited about seeing the next upgrade.
If Jesus had the patience to deal with the blind, surely I should strive to do as much. Besides, as I said, it's easy.

[Yahzi]

Examples, from "around here?"
Oh, please. This place produces more straw than 1000 flying monkeys with 100 Scarecrows. It's easier to find strawmen here than it is to find elephants playing hide-and-seek in your bathroom.

Oh, wait. I just noticed the quotes enclosing the phrase "around here." That implies you don't mean the IIDB in general, but specifically, the arguments in this thread; and the fact that you addressed it to the person making the charge implies that you want them to identify what straw arguments have been used against them.

It seems my original response mischaracterized your original post...

:D

[John A. Broussard]

It seems my original response mischaracterized your original post...
Naw, that's OK. I was just trying to see how someone who knows virtually nothing about logic can recognize a strawman fallacy.

[Chaupoline]

I think we all have all have built up straw men and made generalizations in this argument. I made generalizations about atheists and you have made them about Christians. Religion is not the reason for conflict in the world. I think it is people's need for power over other people. Religon may be used but it is not the cause. Nationalism may be used but it is not the cause either. Race may be used but it is not the cause. Even gender may be used. Anything that you may have in common with someone else can be used to gather support against an opponent. But the elimination of any of these groups will not stop future conflicts.

The Christian view of other people is that they are merely props in your own private morality play. If the humanist says, "Never treat people as means, but only as ends," the Christian says, "God created other people to be means for my ends."

This clear principle of Christian ethics is one of the best proofs that the entire system is morally repugnant.

This is stating that all Christians are the same, when we have already stated that Christians fought for slavery and for its abolishment.

I called Straw Man because I think we all have gotten carried away with our generalizations.

[John A. Broussard]

I think we all have all have built up straw men and made generalizations in this argument. I made generalizations about atheists and you have made them about Christians. Religion is not the reason for conflict in the world. I think it is people's need for power over other people. Religon may be used but it is not the cause. Nationalism may be used but it is not the cause either. Race may be used but it is not the cause. Even gender may be used. Anything that you may have in common with someone else can be used to gather support against an opponent. But the elimination of any of these groups will not stop future conflicts.
Other than religion, do any of these "reasons for conflict" ever claim to be expressing the divine will or to be earthly representatives of a benign, all-loving god.

I do agree that virtually anything can be used to justify conflict but, religion as a basis for it, and Christianity in particular (with it's "turn the other cheek" philosophy) is thoroughly hypocritical.

[AZSuperman]

But what would be the result of evolution as you've described it, as living beings either become more adaptive or go extinct?
As I said: Evolution has no end goal There is no "result of evolution."

If we ever reach perfection, do we become useless? Once God's plan is fulfilled, and we're no longer needed to drive the world toward perfect, what then?I think its an eternally unfolding process.
Then God's plan will NEVER be fulfilled. The moment his plan is fulfilled, the process stops unfolding.

Is the fulfillment of God's plan unavoidable (as you have previously stated), or impossible (as you are now implying)?

That doesn't say that God destroys. If anyone is the be blamed there, it's the conscious agent.Right, like the robbery victim is to blame if they don't go along with the masked gunman... Gotcha!

No. I'm saying white slave owners used the same arguments toward blacks that you are using toward angels. I never said their arguments were valid, only that they are practically identical to yours.But their arguments were wrong.
Then so are your arguments.

I would say that any will (free or not) is the ability to make choices. The freedom of the will requires some degree of autonomy and independence.
I said that angels don't have free will because of their knowledge does not allow them to be as autonomous or independent as you and I.
Satan appears to act rather autonomously and independently... How do his actions demonstrate the lack of indepence inherent in all angels?

The part of them that has done "something right" will achieve eternity while the rest ceases. It's not an all or nothing deal. It never is.
Great, then NO ONE will cease to exist.

People also speak of aliens, faries, nymphs, Elvis, etc.I can't say with full certainty that these people are wrong. For the most part, I don't care.
Come on, do you seriously believe there may be faries living in the world somewhere, or nymphs living in the woods? You don't seriously give these claims a second thought. You dismiss them as rubbish the moment you hear them... You don't live your life in fear of alien abduction, you don't keep your eye out for Elvis, and you don't do it BECAUSE you don't believe the stories.

There is a kernal they all share and understand. The diversity is what it is, but there is commonality not only among these churches but most religions and worldviews.
What is the "kernal" shared between Christianity and Voodoo?

Why should they feel good about helping people and receiving nothing for it? If a person wants to feel good, there are much easier ways of going about it than helping to build a house for a needy family.
Human psychology is an interesting thing. We enjoy helping the less fortunate, especialy when they are truely grateful. I never said there weren't other ways to make yourself feel good... I simply said you won't do anything unless you see a personal benefit. Whether it be simply feeling good afterward, or eternal life.

It may not be, but there is a great number of things we could do to help others that hold no apparent or direct benefit for us. If there is some hidden benefit, you have not demonstrated it.
Read my response above... feeling good can be benefit enough.

The question was a simple one, and you side stepped it. If you think that "feeding the hungry" is better than "gambling in Vegas", you have not explained how or why. I'm not saying they are the only two options, but you should be able to explain why one is better than the other.
I didn't side-step anything. And I've pointed that out numerous times now. Your original question didn't mention Vegas or feeding the hungry. It was only after I answered that question that you changed your question to a false dichotomy, and now you've changed it again.

Your question has evolved from: "how to get someone to see the benefit if helping people outside of her immediate household," to: "how can you get her to spend her money feeding the hungry instead of gambling in Vegas," and finaly to: "demonstrate why feeding the hungry is better than gambling in Vegas." (And you have the nerve to accuse ME of sidestepping?)

Why don't you just admit I was right and move on?

I presume she would say "I need animals for my survival." But not everyone who kills, eats, or otherwise uses animals needs animals for their survival--right? If a person does not need to kill or exploit animals for his survival, how does he justify killing or exploiting them?
Are you still trying to use our treatment of animals to justify God's treatment of his slaves.. er.. angels? Or has this become a whole separate issue for you? I've answered your question several times now... We use animals for our survival. God DOESN'T need Angels for his survival. It doesn't matter if another option is available or not, animals are used to keep us alive. Unless you are going to show how Angels are used to keep God alive, your comparission is flawed.

This verse says nothing about "giving up everything you have" (although others do).It doesn't because you took it out of context. See Luke 14:33.
I admitted there are other verses which agree with you, you only proved my point by suggesting I read Luke 14:33. Also, I didn't take this verse out of context. It was you who altered the meaning to make it say what you wanted it to.

So God can't communicate clearly, or he chooses not to?God can communicate at least as clearly as we can. God can also choose not to communicate at all.
So you're agreeing with me, the only reason for the current confusion is because God chooses not to communicate clearly.

This sounds like a fun game and all, but I'll pass. There is nothing to be gained from it. I already know that there's contradictions.
Then I guess we just agree to disagree? You can claim the Bible says one thing, and I'll claim it says exactly what it does.

So the Muslim believes what he will and I will believe what I will. As long as we can agree on how we should conduct ourselves and relate to one another, we're okay.
Since both the Bible and the Qu'ran say to kill non-believers, I'm sure you won't have any problem coming to an agreement.

Are you the kid in the schoolyard yelling "Fight! Fight! Fight!"?
No, I'm the one showing chicken little that the sky isn't falling.

[Yahzi]

This is stating that all Christians are the same,
It is not meant to. It is meant to make a statement about Christian doctrine; we know that individual Christians often drift far from doctrine. We've even had Christian Atheists on this board.

To clarify, I assert that Christian doctrine is what the Bible says it is. I am unable to argue with Christians who repudiate the Bible, since I have no idea what their claims are.

[Yahzi]

Satan appears to act rather autonomously and independently... How do his actions demonstrate the lack of indepence inherent in all angels?
I keep asking this same question, and CS keeps claiming he answered it already.

:huh:

[Copper Scroll]

Do you really think anonymity and distance are a factor here? Absolutely. <-- edited -->

Are you saying your argument for slavery is not based on God being superior to the angels? God is superior to angels. That's part of what makes their relationship not one of enslavement.

Whites are not superior to blacks.

You seem to have real difficulty with a standard technique we are employing here. <-- edited -->

Really, you will find this to be the entire point of every objection you ever encounter from any atheist: why do you give God a special exemption? God gets the "special exemption" because God is special.

Why do the arguments you support, the logic you defend, suddenly change when God is one of the subjects? Because God is not just one of us.

Of course, whites are not superior to blacks; but that is not relevant, Then, why did you state it as a condition?

A moral agent is a moral agent and deserves moral rights regardless of how much power or superiority it wields. Children, after all, have very little power, but no one suggests that entitles adults to enslave them. But there are certain rights children don't have, and there's certain rights certain animals have.


If ethics and morality are not based on reason, then what are they based on? Something far more fundamental than reason--God, life, love, etc. If you claim that they are based on reason, can you demonstrate this?


What I said was I mean for you to be so repulsed by your own actions that you change them. No, I'm just repulsed by you. The only action I might change as a result of it is coming back to this thread. I think the juice has been drained from it anyway.

If I am unable to paraphrase your argument to your satisfaction, that implies that one of us does not understand your argument. It does appear that you don't understand it and this may be the reason why you claim I ignore a contradiction that I know is not there. By saying that it's not there, you think I am ignoring it. Hopefully, this post will bring some clarity. You might want to turn down the fog machine.

Now your defense is that you never said God hides his will. This is a clear contradiction of your claims that God does not allow us to know his will fully, as the angels do. I never said God hides God's will because that would falsely characterize the situation. If you did something inside your house that passers by outside can't see but guests inside can, are you "hiding" your actions from the passers by? Technically... in a way... yes. But if I were to describe the situation as you hiding certain actions from those who pass by your house, this would be misleading.

Instead of forcing me to type the argument out over and over, and then complaining about individual sentences, why don't you just answer the question: It's not complaining, it's setting you straight. The contradiction, as you see it, is based on these "individual sentences". If one is false, there is no contradiction. In each of your cute little syllogisms, at least one premise has been wrong and falsely attributed to me. By pointing this out, I am not ignoring your argument--I'm balling it up and flushing it down the toilet.

1. Why can't God share full knowledge of what He wants with us? God can but doesn't.

I presume you will answer that full knowledge would constrain our choice. I would.

Which leads to the next question:

2. Can angels choose, despite having their choice constrained?

Which you have already answered "yes" to, citing the example of Satan. And this brings us to the contradiction:

3a. If choice is still possible with full knowledge, then why do we have to choose with less knowledge? Because, if "constrained" the choice to obey is not being made freely. The choice must be made freely in order for us to be like God and to attain God's perfection, because God is free. Freedom is what makes us agents. If the choice is unfree, it does not belong to us but to God. That's why I said the angels are like God's appendages. Their doing is not really their doing--it's God's doing. Our doing must be our own--it's our reason for being.

Doesn't that just make it easier for people to fail?[/b]] Sure, but it's the same with many things in life. You can't fail at school if you don't go to school. Once at school, taking more classes makes it easier for you to fail. Why then would anyone go to school? Once there, why would the student take on 18 credits instead of 15? Because this person has certain goals in mind.

or alternatively,
3b. Why does God share any knowledge of his will with us? The knowledge that we do have of God's will makes eternity accessible for us. Within that knowledge is the invitation to join God eternally. Wouldn't any knowledge constrain our choice? I guess, and perhaps this is the reason why people attribute their own righteousness to God. They say things like "Without God, this could not be possible." So, I guess, some degree of our righteousness does belong to God, but it also belongs to us if we make many righteous choices everyday on our own.
Thus, shouldn't we make our choice in complete ignorance of God's will? I don't know, but I'm sure glad that we don't.

I look forward to seeing which sentence you decide to complain about, while simply ignoring the obvious point set forth. I think you bitched in a better way this time. I can't "complain about" your sentences because they are questions and they can't be lies in and of themselves. {Edited}

I have demonstrated incredible patience with you, :notworthy And I don't know where I'd be right now without you. Probably watching VH1. In this case, I do thank you.

You just spent half a page whining that "constrain" is not the same as "prevents," and you call my posts shit? Yes, I did (perhaps both). I was foolish enough to think that spending "half a page" stating that "undermines the freedom of choice" is not the same thing as "prevents choice" might actually help you understand this better than simply saying "undermines the freedom of choice" is not the same thing as "prevents choice". And I did call your post shit.

How about you acknowledge the actual point, and address what my argument means, instead of playing word-definition games? Can you demonstrate that I misused any word? If not, you don't have the right to acuse me of playing games.

If Jesus had the patience to deal with the blind, surely I should strive to do as much. Besides, as I said, it's easy.
If it's as easy as it looks, the condition you have has a name--{Edited}

[Copper Scroll]

As I said: Evolution has no end goal There is no "result of evolution." Everything that happens, Clark, has a result. I think you did claim that evolution happens. Then, I say, it must have a result. You may not have certain knowledge of what that result is or ultimately will be, but you do have some understanding (or theory) about how evolution works. This understanding could at least help you paint a picture of what the end result might be. If it doesn't, then say "I don't know what the result is." Don't say that there is no result. (But I do realize that most atheists prefer "No such thing." to "I don't know.")

Then God's plan will NEVER be fulfilled. The moment his plan is fulfilled, the process stops unfolding. The fulfillment is eternally unfolding. That means it's being fulfilled now.

Is the fulfillment of God's plan unavoidable (as you have previously stated), or impossible (as you are now implying)? unavoidable

Right, like the robbery victim is to blame if they don't go along with the masked gunman... Gotcha! This is not a stickup. (Does "gotcha!" mean "This is the last word, let's move on"?)

Then so are your arguments. I wrote in post 650: "My argument about angels is not the same as the argument whites used for slavery. The latter is based upon the belief that whites are superior. My arguement about angels is not based on that."

Satan appears to act rather autonomously and independently... How do his actions demonstrate the lack of indepence inherent in all angels? I wrote "angels don't have free will because of their knowledge does not allow them to be as autonomous or independent as you and I." There apparently is not a complete lack of independence and autonomy in angels.


Great, then NO ONE will cease to exist. That would be great. Some may contribute their whole selves to eternity while some contribute a miniscule shred of themselves. It would be even better if everyone's whole self could attain eternity.


Come on, do you seriously believe there may be faries living in the world somewhere, or nymphs living in the woods? Is there a name for this fallacy too? It's another popular one. Somebody here once said I believe in Santa based on it.

You don't seriously give these claims a second thought. because I have no reason to.

You don't live your life in fear of alien abduction, nor do I live my life in fear of a carjacking. But carjackings I'm pretty sure do happen.

you don't keep your eye out for Elvis, I'm not really a big Elvis fan.

and you don't do it BECAUSE you don't believe the stories. I don't know for sure that those stories are false. I don't accept tthem as true just because someone tells them either. I don't mind saying "I don't know" or "I don't know but I doubt". You and many atheists would just hate to say that.

What is the "kernal" shared between Christianity and Voodoo? I suspect there are even more forms of vodoun than of Christianity. I don't know enough about the commonalities between them to answer your question. Vodoun is however rooted in African animism which does believe in a purposeful power higher than all. So does Christianity.

Human psychology is an interesting thing. We enjoy helping the less fortunate, especialy when they are truely grateful. I never said there weren't other ways to make yourself feel good... I simply said you won't do anything unless you see a personal benefit. Whether it be simply feeling good afterward, or eternal life.
So then altruism is an illusion to you? I disagree with you. I think people are capable of helping others for the sake of others--of doing right because it's right--of being good for goodness sake. They might "feel good" afterwards because they accomplished a goal. Accomplishing any goal will make a person feel good, but "feeling good" is not their reason for setting the goal.

I'm sure bin Laden felt good about September 11. But he didn't do it to feel good. He did it to terrorize a great number of Americans. By succeeding, he felt good.

If a person tries to rescue someone--to save someone's life--and fails, he doesn't feel good. But if you ask him would he do it over again, he will probably say yes knowing he'd just fail and not feel good at all.

Ask a first- or second-year teacher if they feel good after teaching every day. Some days he might say yes. Most days he'll say hell no.

Your question has evolved from: "how to get someone to see the benefit if helping people outside of her immediate household," to: "how can you get her to spend her money feeding the hungry instead of gambling in Vegas," This isn't the evolution of a single question, it's two different questions.

and finaly to: "demonstrate why feeding the hungry is better than gambling in Vegas." This is the same question as the second rephrased. No evolution has taken place.

Why don't you just admit I was right and move on? Why is feeding the hungry better than gambling in Vegas? Because it makes you "feel good" to feed the hungry? But gambling also feels good and offers the possibility of winning more money. You have failed to show why feeding the hungry is better. Is feeding the hungry not better?


It doesn't matter if another option is available or not, animals are used to keep us alive. You seem to be saying that the ends justify the means. Let's say I don't have any legitimate income. How am I supposed to get the groceries I need to survive? I could steal the groceries. If you ask me how I justify the crime I can say I did it to survive. The police and judge won't buy this justification because they know (or believe) that I have other options. I'm not buying your justification of our treatment of animals for the same reason.

I admitted there are other verses which agree with you, you only proved my point by suggesting I read Luke 14:33. Also, I didn't take this verse out of context. It was you who altered the meaning to make it say what you wanted it to. Luke 14:33 helps put the verse you quoted in context. You quoted a statement made during a speech and omitted the theme of that speech presenting the statement in isolation. I didn't change the statement; I put it back in context.

[John A. Broussard]

But I do realize that most atheists prefer "No such thing." to "I don't know."
Really?

How about a few examples of atheists who prefer "No such thing." to "I don't know"?

Thank you.

[Yahzi]

Absolutely.
I didn't get to read the edited part, but I assure you, my behaviour is no different in person. Elsewhere I have revealed that I am 6'2" and a part-time karate instructor, and totally lacking in tact or social skills. So you can see there are virtually no circumstances under which I don't say my piece. (A few months ago I was screaming in the face of a complete stranger holding a gun, actually. One he had just fired. In the desert, in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night. What can I say? He was being stupid.) Anyway the point is, you may rest assured that I am treating you as I would treat you under any circumstance.

Unless you are about to reveal that you are a) in a hospitial bed, b) extremely aged, or c) mentally retarded. Under those circumstances I would certainly treat you differently.

God is superior to angels. That's part of what makes their relationship not one of enslavement.
This is the entire point. You defend "might makes right." You defend slavery based on superiority. You reject the argument I gave about how moral agents have an innate right to moral treatment, and instead define right as whatever someone has the power to enforce.

The idea that "might makes right" has been rejected by philosophers and ordinary people for some time now.

Whites are not superior to blacks.
Of course not. But if we could show that they were, your arguments would justify slavery.

<-- edited -->
Again, I didn't get to read the edited part, but please understand I was not trying to insult you. I honestly believe that you, for whatever reason, do not understand or accept this fundamental basis of symbolic logic. More evidence of that is your following statement:

God gets the "special exemption" because God is special.
This fallacy is called "special pleading."

What it does is remove God from any logical discussion. But of course, if we cannot discuss God logically, all we can do is announce our (completely unjustifiable) beliefs and leave it at that. And the problem with this is, if you can't resolve your differences rationally, all you have left is force. It's only a few short steps from there to planes flying into buildings. So you can see why it is not in anyone's best interest to remove God from the sphere of logical discussion.

Furthermore, the problem with special pleading is that it is innately hypocritical. If you get to declare God as special, why don't I get to declare something as special? Like, for instance, the superiority of the white race. When you ask me for evidence of the truth of that claim, do I get to say, "That claim is special and does not require evidence; furthermore, it is true, no matter how absurd or contradictory it may seem." Because if I do, then we are gonna come back to your arguments about slavery...

If you are not willing to allow other people to declare their cow sacred and untouchable by logic, then you cannot - out of simple fairness - demand that your cow be sacred.

Then, why did you state it as a condition?
It's called a "hypothetical" case. Normally I do not suggest that people need to do a course of study before they engage in debates here at IIDB, but your complete unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of symbolic logic and argument are quite striking.

But there are certain rights children don't have, and there's certain rights certain animals have.
Sure. But why don't they have those rights? It is because they are not capable of exercising them, not because they lack power. Children are forbidden from signing long-term contracts not because they are physically weaker or less powerful than adults, but because they cannot understand the terms of the contract.

Something far more fundamental than reason--God, life, love, etc. If you claim that they are based on reason, can you demonstrate this?
First off, life and love are perfectly reasonable. Secondly, God cannot be the basis of moral knowledge, since as you make clear, God has left us to figure it out on our own. Even if we grant that God underlies morality somehow, by your own theology that is no help: we still have to deduce the correct path without God simply telling us. And the only way to deduce anything with reliability is reason, which is why we use reason in court trials, medical research, bridge building, etc. etc. etc.

I think the method by which we use reason to deduce morality is obvious. But how we are to deduce morality by resorting to a silent God, life (but not by examining it reasonably!), and love is not at all clear.

No, I'm just repulsed by you.
If you will read the thread, you will see I am the one rejecting the enslavement of blacks for any reason. You are the one asserting that if we could show blacks were inferior, it would be right and proper for whites to enslave them.

I am not entirely sure why you are repulsed by my whole-sale rejection of slavery, but I have to say it doesn't seem like that is going to win you any points with the audience.

The only action I might change as a result of it is coming back to this thread. I think the juice has been drained from it anyway.
The juice remains as tart and odiferous as the first post.

Technically... in a way... yes.
We have established that God is hiding his will, and you have agreed by saying, "Yes."

Now I understand there are certain subleties, but you have mischaracterized them. It is not the case of me hiding something in my house. It is the case of me going outside, taking down the "Bridge Out" sign from the roadway, hiding it in my basement, and then pretending innocence when people drive off the bridge in the dark and die. And when people find out the sign was in my basement, I say, "I wasn't hiding it. All they had to do was ask, and I would have gladly shown them the sign."

God has knowledge that affects our eternal life. If God does not shout it at us, and force us to sign on a registered mail reciept that we recieved it, then he is remiss in his moral duty.

But of course you will simply respond with, "I know that any human in that situation would be expected to be more proactive, but God is God and therefore no rules apply to him. God gets to be called good even when He is not behaving in a way that would earn anyone else the label, but that is because God is special."

See why "special pleading" is such a corker?

In each of your cute little syllogisms, at least one premise has been wrong and falsely attributed to me.
As stated before, I won't bother researching posts to prove otherwise.

God can but doesn't.
This is not a rebuttal of the claim.

Because, if "constrained" the choice to obey is not being made freely.
This is off the topic of the current contradiction: but consider this. The constraint is not in the knoweldge but in the consequences. If you have three buttons before you, and only one of them will let you live while the other two will kill you instantly, then your choices are constrained even if you do not know it.

Our choice is constrained because we go to hell if we choose wrongly. The fact that we do not know how to choose does not change the consequences of our choice. Thus, our choice remains constrained. We just don't know about it.

That's why I said the angels are like God's appendages. Their doing is not really their doing
So Satan's rebellion is God's doing?

Sure, but it's the same with many things in life. You can't fail at school if you don't go to school. Once at school, taking more classes makes it easier for you to fail.
But the classes are not designed to make it easier for you to fail.

Why then would anyone go to school? Once there, why would the student take on 18 credits instead of 15? Because this person has certain goals in mind.
But this is wholly irrelevant to the case at hand. The goal you are talking about is singular: eternal life. Taking more classes, having more chances to fail, does not advance that goal. In fact, it retards it. People take heavy class loads (risk more failure) because they want to get a better education (earn more reward). But there is only one reward in your system, and more chances to fail does not translate into more chances to earn that reward.

The knowledge that we do have of God's will makes eternity accessible for us.
So God revealed just enough for us to choose correctly, but not so much that it would constrain our choice (or be easy to make the choice). One immediately has to ask why God did not make it easy. Your argument above does not explain why God chose to make it harder, knowing that would mean more people go to hell.

Does God want people to go to hell? If the answer is no, then why didn't he make it easier? In fact, why didn't he make it hard to go to hell, while still allowing people who really, really wanted that to choose it? Like, for instance, Satan, who despite all constraint choose hell anyway.

This is the fundamental flaw you simply ignore. Satan proves that full knowlege of God's will does not prevent choice. It just makes it hard to fail. So God, by not giving us full knowledge, has simply chosen to make it easier for us to fail.

God is not required to hide his will from us, because knowlege of his will does not prevent choice. So why does God hide his will from us? The only answer you have provided is "so that it is harder for people to choose correctly, so that more of them will go to hell."

You are saying God wants people to go to hell.

I don't know,
That is not an argument. When you get to the part of your argument where you say, "I don't know," that means you lose. Your argument has failed. If your argument depends upon propositions that mystify you and do not make sense to you, then your argument is not rational.

Why even bother to argue if your ultimate defense is, "I don't know?"

I think you bitched in a better way this time. I can't "complain about" your sentences because they are questions and they can't be lies in and of themselves.
Please consider that your response to my argument was a wildly inappropriate analogy, the phrase, "I don't know," and a new contradiction, wherein you say that angels doing is really God's doing, completely ignoring the fact that you described Satan's rebellion as Satan's choice.

You have moved the contradiction to the statement, "Their (the angels) doing is not really their doing." This is a direct contradiction of your claim that Satan chose to rebel.

Instead of answering the contradiction, you have simply moved it. Each time you post, you pick a different sentence and contradict it. Which is remarkable, considering there are only 3 sentences.

Yes, I did (perhaps both). I was foolish enough to think that spending "half a page" stating that "undermines the freedom of choice" is not the same thing as "prevents choice" might actually help you understand this better than simply saying "undermines the freedom of choice" is not the same thing as "prevents choice".
Again with the whining that we were so foolish as to think that "compel" and "force" meant something other than merely "undermine." Terribly sorry - we won't let it happen again.

And I did call your post shit.
Such humble, gentle Christian behaviour. And rational and mature. I point out a contradiction, and you respond with expletives.

Can you demonstrate that I misused any word? If not, you don't have the right to acuse me of playing games.
The argument over "compel," "force," and "undermine."


Having typed all this, I realize I have wasted everyone's time. There is really only one thing anyone wants to read from you, and that is the answer to this question:

Please explain how Satan's choice to rebel is God's doing - but still Satan's choice.

[AZSuperman]

Everything that happens, Clark, has a result. I think you did claim that evolution happens. Then, I say, it must have a result. You may not have certain knowledge of what that result is or ultimately will be, but you do have some understanding (or theory) about how evolution works. This understanding could at least help you paint a picture of what the end result might be. If it doesn't, then say "I don't know what the result is." Don't say that there is no result. (But I do realize that most atheists prefer "No such thing." to "I don't know.")
Oh be serious! Evolution is a PROCESS, it doesn't stop, it has no end goal. An animal evolves, a new animal is the result... that animal contiues to evolve, a new animal is the result, that animal evolves, and a new animal is again the result... there is no finished product. Asking what the end result of evolution will be shows a serious lack of knowledge concerning the evolutionary process.

I have no problem saying "I don't know," however if you were more familiar with the evolutionary process, you wouldn't have accused me of evading a question.

The fulfillment is eternally unfolding. That means it's being fulfilled now.
Just like the race is eternally ending... Come on! You said the fulfillment of God's plan was us living in perfect peace, that's not happening now!

I wrote in post 650: "My argument about angels is not the same as the argument whites used for slavery. The latter is based upon the belief that whites are superior. My arguement about angels is not based on that."
Your argument is that one race (God) is superior to another race (angels) and that justifies his treatment of them. Would you willingly submit yourself to be a slave to a race of aliens which could be shown to be superior to yourself?

I wrote "angels don't have free will because of their knowledge does not allow them to be as autonomous or independent as you and I." There apparently is not a complete lack of independence and autonomy in angels.
:rolling: So angels have the ability to make decisions, and they have autonomy and independence, but not to the same level as us? So free-will isn't about the ability to think for yourself, or the ability to make decisions for yourself, or the ability to act independently... This is absolutely hysterical! You've painted yourself into a corner which is incredible! Why don't you show me an example of the kind of independence humans have that angels don't. What can we do, which can't be done by angels?


That would be great. Some may contribute their whole selves to eternity while some contribute a miniscule shred of themselves. It would be even better if everyone's whole self could attain eternity.
If you say so, you've yet to demonstrate any real benefit.

Come on, do you seriously believe there may be faries living in the world somewhere, or nymphs living in the woods? Is there a name for this fallacy too? It's another popular one. Somebody here once said I believe in Santa based on it.
It's not a fallacy, because you said you didn't know if claims about Faries were real or make believe. I'm asking if you do seriously consider it to be a possibility, or if you actually discount the possibility without seriously considering it.

I don't know for sure that those stories are false. I don't accept tthem as true just because someone tells them either. I don't mind saying "I don't know" or "I don't know but I doubt". You and many atheists would just hate to say that.
Again, I have no problem saying I don't know... or "I don't know but I doubt." You say you don't know if stories about aliens or faries are real or false, but you doubt they're real... Can you provide any more evidence for your God then I can provide for aliens?

I suspect there are even more forms of vodoun than of Christianity. I don't know enough about the commonalities between them to answer your question. Vodoun is however rooted in African animism which does believe in a purposeful power higher than all. So does Christianity.
So the idea that there is a god of some sort is enough to claim a common thread? If that's the only commonality you can think of, then you're grasping at straws when you claim all religions share a kernal of truth.

So then altruism is an illusion to you? I disagree with you. I think people are capable of helping others for the sake of others--of doing right because it's right--of being good for goodness sake. They might "feel good" afterwards because they accomplished a goal. Accomplishing any goal will make a person feel good, but "feeling good" is not their reason for setting the goal.
Altruism is not an illusion to me, people make themselves feel good by helping others.... They are serving themselves vicariously. Perhaps I just have a better understanding of altruism than you do. Feeling good may not be the main reason someone does something, but they will stop doing it if it continually fails to make them feel good... or if it causes them to feel worse.

I'm sure bin Laden felt good about September 11. But he didn't do it to feel good. He did it to terrorize a great number of Americans. By succeeding, he felt good.
He did it because he thought it was right, I'm sure he felt great afterwards. He felt like he had won a great victory for his cause. If it didn't make him feel good, he would stop.

If a person tries to rescue someone--to save someone's life--and fails, he doesn't feel good. But if you ask him would he do it over again, he will probably say yes knowing he'd just fail and not feel good at all.
Because he would feel worse if he sat by and did nothing. In which case trying and failing feels better than not trying at all... my definition holds.

Ask a first- or second-year teacher if they feel good after teaching every day. Some days he might say yes. Most days he'll say hell no.
I happen to know several grade school teachers, and most of the time they love their job. They do have difficult days, but for the most part they enjoy going to work everymorning... It makes them feel good.

Your question has evolved from: "how to get someone to see the benefit if helping people outside of her immediate household," to: "how can you get her to spend her money feeding the hungry instead of gambling in Vegas," This isn't the evolution of a single question, it's two different questions.
Then quit trying to say I am avoiding your question. Acknowledge that I provided a sufficient answer to your original question and then move on to your next question.

and finaly to: "demonstrate why feeding the hungry is better than gambling in Vegas." This is the same question as the second rephrased. No evolution has taken place.
No, this is not the same as the second question. The second question poses a false dichotomy, presenting only two out of several options. This re-wording of the question is not asking for any method of coercing someone into performing a specific action, it's only asking for the benefit of feeding the hungry compared to gambling in Vegas.

Why is feeding the hungry better than gambling in Vegas? Because it makes you "feel good" to feed the hungry? But gambling also feels good and offers the possibility of winning more money. You have failed to show why feeding the hungry is better. Is feeding the hungry not better? That question is easy enough to answer: In my opinion, feeding the hungry is better because more people receive the benefit of the action, and no one is injured by the action.

It doesn't matter if another option is available or not, animals are used to keep us alive. You seem to be saying that the ends justify the means. Let's say I don't have any legitimate income. How am I supposed to get the groceries I need to survive? I could steal the groceries. If you ask me how I justify the crime I can say I did it to survive. The police and judge won't buy this justification because they know (or believe) that I have other options. I'm not buying your justification of our treatment of animals for the same reason.
I don't care if you're buying my justification or not. I've provided numerous examples of animals being used to sustain human life, either as food, clothing, or medicine. You have yet to demonstrate how this relates to God's treatment of Angels. Does he need them to survive?

Luke 14:33 helps put the verse you quoted in context. You quoted a statement made during a speech and omitted the theme of that speech presenting the statement in isolation. I didn't change the statement; I put it back in context.
The verse which you quoted says you must give up everything you own in order to be Jesus' diciple. I never argued that such verses exist, but if we look at it in accordance to Luke 14:26 (which I quoted earlier) it still doesn't fit the context you are trying to put it in. According to you, these verses say someone must be willing to hate his family and give up his possessions, but the verses don't support this. The verses state that unless you already hate your family, and have given up all of your belongings, you CAN NOT be Jesus' disciple.

The verse you quoted does nothing to add to the context, it only adds an addition requirment which I had not previously included. Unless you can show me a verse which somehow demonstrates that the requirements are optional, your "context" is purely fictional.

[Chaupoline]

It is not meant to. It is meant to make a statement about Christian doctrine; we know that individual Christians often drift far from doctrine. We've even had Christian Atheists on this board.

To clarify, I assert that Christian doctrine is what the Bible says it is. I am unable to argue with Christians who repudiate the Bible, since I have no idea what their claims are.

So your complaint is with the interepretation of the Bible and not religion itself. I have already stated what my views are and I don't consider myself to be a Christian atheist.

You would be more effective in your arguments with Christians if you were to not discuss the God issue and instead focus on the morality issue. Otherwise you will get into a atheists are stupid for not believing in God, and the theists are stupid for believing in God argument. Then the issue ceases to become a debate and just becomes a my side vs. your side yelling ego match.

[AZSuperman]

You would be more effective in your arguments with Christians if you were to not discuss the God issue and instead focus on the morality issue. Otherwise you will get into a atheists are stupid for not believing in God, and the theists are stupid for believing in God argument. Then the issue ceases to become a debate and just becomes a my side vs. your side yelling ego match.
Atheists don't believe in God, so the issue IS whether or not God exists. The question isn't one of morality. (This forum is on the Existence of God, and this thread is was created to try to determine what God is.) Morals can exist with or without God.

If you've paid much attention to the discussion on this board, it usually consists of atheists explaining why they don't feel there is any reason to believe in a God. Theists try to counter the arguments, and the atheists then point out the holes in their logic. Sometimes the debate starts with a theist presenting an argument, then the atheist demonstrates the holes, then the theist attempts to patch or explain away the holes. Atheists rarely lower themselves to saying "You're stupid because you disagree;" however, several theists have been observed using a very similar argument when the holes in their other arguments have been pointed out.

[Copper Scroll]

So Satan's rebellion is God's doing?
Please explain how Satan's choice to rebel is God's doing - but still Satan's choice. It was the devil's choice, not God's doing.

Clark will like this analogy: Let's say someone takes hostages during the course of robbing a bank. She is armed and dangerous and orders the hostages to do give up the money. Afterwards, the former hostages are not charged with any crime because we reasonably blame the bank robber. We say the robber was her doing, even if it was technically the hostages who gave her the money. Similarly, when angels act in accordance with God's will, we can reasonably say it is God's doing.

Now let's say one hostage decides to disobey the robber, even with full knowledge of the robber's dangerousness. In her disobedience, can we say that her actions are the robber's doing? No, it is this hostage's choice to hold back and risk getting killed. Similarly, when the angel disobeys God, we can say it is her choice and not God's doing.

Elsewhere I have revealed that I am 6'2" and a part-time karate instructor, and totally lacking in tact or social skills. It really is good that you acknowledge this. Maybe you should have let me know at the outset. I have the tendency to assume that anyone who bothers to interact with me has some social skills. I've had to discover your total lack on my own. Your acknowledgement is late, but better late than never.

This is the entire point. You defend "might makes right." By equating superiority with might, your definition of might or power may be too broad and your definition of superiority may be too narrow. Find a definition of superiority that says anything about power or might. Most I find use broader terms like "transcendence", "excellence," or "being better".

But then your definition of power appears to grow more narrow when you say...
It is because they are not capable of exercising them, not because they lack power. (This says that children do not have certain rights because they are not capable of exercising them, not because they lack power.)
Doesn't being "not capable" mean lacking in some form of power? Of course, it does. So, in the end, we do deprive children of certain rights because they are not as "powerful" or "mighty" or "capable" as us.

Children are forbidden from signing long-term contracts not because they are physically weaker or less powerful than adults, but because they cannot understand the terms of the contract. They do not have the ability (power) to understand, you say. But as long as they have the power to write, they have the power to sign a contract. We deprive their signature of legitimacy because we decree that they do not have the ability or capacity (power) to understand what they are signing.

First off, life and love are perfectly reasonable. I agree, but they are not based on reason--neither is ethics. Ethics can be defended with reason, but reason is not its foundation.

Secondly, God cannot be the basis of moral knowledge, since as you make clear, God has left us to figure it out on our own. We are "left to figure out" how to apply our ethics and morals to everyday situations.

I think the method by which we use reason to deduce morality is obvious. Then show me.

But this is wholly irrelevant to the case at hand. The goal you are talking about is singular: eternal life. Taking more classes, having more chances to fail, does not advance that goal. In fact, it retards it. People take heavy class loads (risk more failure) because they want to get a better education (earn more reward). But there is only one reward in your system, and more chances to fail does not translate into more chances to earn that reward. It does. This is related to my discussion with Clark. My position is that we are each a compilation of thoughts and actions. In each thought and action we each have a chance at failing and a chance at succeeding. My goal is to commit myself as a whole or as much of myself as I can to God's will and the fulfillment of God's plan. The degree to which I succeed determines the degree to which (how much of me) attains eternity. As far as I can tell the "school" analogy stands.


So God revealed just enough for us to choose correctly, but not so much that it would constrain our choice (or be easy to make the choice). One immediately has to ask why God did not make it easy. We've been hear before. Unless God justs hands us eternity and forces us to take it, it could always be easier. But, as I've argued in the past, we must choose righteousness in order to be righteous ourselves. Now, it could be easier, but it could also be harder. Its difficulty is relative, and the determination of its difficulty is subjective. God could make it easier, but eventually someone would complain again that it is not easy enough. The only thing that we eliminate this complaint is righteousness and eternal life being forced on us.

Satan proves that full knowlege of God's will does not prevent choice. But the devil is mad with hate and jealousy. We would have to be as mad, hateful, and jealous to exercise "choice" if God just hands us eternity.

You are saying God wants people to go to hell. You are saying that's what I'm saying.


That is not an argument. Your question was "shouldn't we make our choice in complete ignorance of God's will?" Part of my answer was "I don't know." You are right; this is not an argument. By saying "I don't know" does that toss out any argument I've answered in the past? You seem to think so:

When you get to the part of your argument where you say, "I don't know," that means you lose. If you want to say that I lose, you are welcome. I know that I don't. I didn't come here to win at any game. I came to learn and have learned. That means I win.

If your argument depends upon propositions that mystify you and do not make sense to you, then your argument is not rational. My argument certainly does not depend on the question of whether we should make our choices in complete darkness and ignorance.

Why even bother to argue if your ultimate defense is, "I don't know?"
More importantly, why bother arguing with me if you want to believe that my ultimate defense is "I don't know."

The argument over "compel," "force," and "undermine." "Compel" and "force" mean to cause to do something through pressure or necessity--as in "She forced him to take a job in the city". Could he decide to take a job somewhere else or not to take any job at all? I suppose he could. Thus "forcing" someone to do something does not eliminate choice.

"Undermine" means to sabotage or to hinder normal function. When someone is forced to do something the free functioning of his capacity to choose is hindered. Thus, his the freedom of his choice is undermined.

Demonstrate how I have misused the three words in question or retract your charge.

[Yahzi]

So your complaint is with the interepretation of the Bible and not religion itself.
Well, call me silly, but I think that the interpretation of the Bible is the religion.

You would be more effective in your arguments with Christians if you were to not discuss the God issue and instead focus on the morality issue.
An interesting suggestion.

[Yahzi]

It was the devil's choice, not God's doing.
That's why I said the angels are like God's appendages. Their doing is not really their doing
You know what would help? What would help is if you said what you actually meant. See, when you say the angel's doing is not really their doing, but God's doing, and then you say that Satan's actions are not God's doing, but the angel Satan's doing, we just get confused.

Please clear it up: who is doing what now?

It really is good that you acknowledge this. Maybe you should have let me know at the outset. I have the tendency to assume that anyone who bothers to interact with me has some social skills. I've had to discover your total lack on my own. Your acknowledgement is late, but better late than never.
Did that make you feel better? Good. However, this is the IIDB; what counts here is not social ability, but logical coherence.

By equating superiority with might
That was just an example. The issue remains: you feel that "superiority" entitles one race to ignore the moral rights of an "inferior" race. If we could demonstrate that whites were superior to blacks, your arguments would justify their enslavement. I find that repulsive; don't you agree?

They do not have the ability (power) to understand, you say. But as long as they have the power to write, they have the power to sign a contract. We deprive their signature of legitimacy because we decree that they do not have the ability or capacity (power) to understand what they are signing.
Your misunderstanding of child psychology is beyond my ability to repair.

I agree, but they are not based on reason--neither is ethics. Ethics can be defended with reason, but reason is not its foundation.
Then what are the based on? Please explain how a silent God is ana dequate basis for deriving ethics, while reason is not.

We are "left to figure out" how to apply our ethics and morals to everyday situations.
We are left to figure what those ethics are. Is homosexuality normal, or a sin against God? Notice how many Christians seem to be having trouble figuring out the answer to that?

Then show me.
When you demonstrate your ability to conduct a rational discussion by addressing the contradiction you continue to present vis-a-vie the angels, then I will undertake the effort of explaining John Rawls and the Original Position. Until then, it seems both premature and irrelevant.

The degree to which I succeed determines the degree to which (how much of me) attains eternity. As far as I can tell the "school" analogy stands.
I see. You have invented this "percentage" approach to Heaven to justify God making it harder. No one goes to hell; it's just that more of the "special" people go to Heaven.

But wait; if some percentage of each person goes to Heaven, then apparently nobody has a choice after, all.

Either people chose to go to heaven, or they don't. Saying that they choose which percentage of them get to go to heaven does not count as "free will."

Unless God justs hands us eternity and forces us to take it,
By "force," you mean "undermine our choice
Do you actually mean "force" here, or just "undermine our ability to not take it?"

God could make it easier, but eventually someone would complain again that it is not easy enough.
This is not true. The only "easiness" I am asking for is full knowlegde of what God wants. There is no way to go beyond that; full knowledge is an objective end-point. One either has full knowledge, or one does not; once one has it, there is no more to have.

Again, your analogy simply does not describe the situation.

But the devil is mad with hate and jealousy. We would have to be as mad, hateful, and jealous to exercise "choice" if God just hands us eternity.
So what? It still remains a choice. Once again you are saying that God does not want only those who are mad with hate and jealousy to go to hell; rather, God wants people who are only slightly hateful and jealous to go to hell.

Why would God want anyone to go to hell? Why would God object to an arrangment where only the insanely hateful go to Hell? Certainly none of us humans would object. What is God's problem with it?

You are saying that's what I'm saying.
Your words speak for themselves.

You are right; this is not an argument.
If it is not dialogue, it is monologue. Which is a fancy word for "preaching."

By saying "I don't know" does that toss out any argument I've answered in the past?
But this question is extremely relevant. If your position is that knowledge of God's will constrains our choice, then why would God give us any knowledge of his will?

Why is God constraining our choices to a particular degree?

If you want to say that I lose, you are welcome.
When I say, "you lose," what I mean is, "your position has failed to be supported by logic and reason."

I came to learn and have learned.
Well, you're learning the names of some logical fallacies. That's good.

More importantly, why bother arguing with me if you want to believe that my ultimate defense is "I don't know."
I don't want to believe it; it's what you said. You typed those words. I asked you a question about the logical extension of your position, and you said, "I don't know." Dude, it's your position; if you don't know, who does?

Thus "forcing" someone to do something does not eliminate choice.
Ok... could you tell us what word does mean "eliminate choice?"

Demonstrate how I have misused the three words in question or retract your charge.
To force someone to take an action is to deny them the ability to choose their action. That is what the word "force" means. It is what the word "compel" means. They are not synonyms for "undermine." You may look up the various words in the dictionary and determine for yourself that while "force" and "compel" are synonyms, "undermine" is not.


To recap: your contradiction remains, in the two statements that assert that angels doing is and is not God's doing.

[Copper Scroll]

Oh be serious! Evolution is a PROCESS, it doesn't stop, it has no end goal. You'll note I retracted my question about an "end goal" and asked you about a result.

Asking what the end result of evolution will be shows a serious lack of knowledge concerning the evolutionary process. I don't think it's a "given" about evolution that it must last forever. You're saying that you think it will last forever, so it does not have an end result. I accept this answer. You say new animals (and, I assume, other living beings) will keep evolving. You also implied that these living beings getter better through evolution when you spoke of more effective hunters and more elusive prey. Again, by saying this process will last forever, it reminds me of eternity and the fulfillment of God's plan.

You said the fulfillment of God's plan was us living in perfect peace, that's not happening now! I disagree. No, the world is not perfect right now, but we are striving to make it better; the world is striving for perfection, I suspect, in various ways. Some things and some people who exist now will always exist as the world becomes more perfect. So, it is happening now.

Would you willingly submit yourself to be a slave to a race of aliens which could be shown to be superior to yourself? If these aliens were as powerful as God, I suppose it wouldn't matter whether I submit or not. But aliens as powerful as God can't exist.

So angels have the ability to make decisions, and they have autonomy and independence, but not to the same level as us? right.

So free-will isn't about the ability to think for yourself, or the ability to make decisions for yourself, or the ability to act independently... You lose me here. In thinking, if you are not autonomous, you are not thinking for yourself. If a decision you make is not made independently, you are not really making a decision.

You've painted yourself into a corner which is incredible! Please, show me how.

Why don't you show me an example of the kind of independence humans have that angels don't. What can we do, which can't be done by angels? I'm not sure if this is specific enough: In a moral dilemma, we must determine which action is right and decide to take this action. In making this determination and decision we weight a lot of different things (consequences and variables) and make determinations and decision about the relative importance of these various things. Angels don't have so many distractions. They know exactly what is right without having their vision obscured by lower motivations. Granted that they know that righteousness brings eternity and sin death, the decision is already made for them by the one who gave them this knowledge--God. So in obeying God they are not acting independently. Their choices are not as free as ours.

If you say so, you've yet to demonstrate any real benefit. You said yourself that goodness should be done for its own sake. But then again you also said that what is good is determined by its benefit to you. So goodness, to you, is dependent upon your own interests. I'm confused. Have I summed you up correctly?

I'm asking if you do seriously consider it to be a possibility, or if you actually discount the possibility without seriously considering it. By not "seriously considering it", I am not claiming that fairies cannot be. I am saying I don't care whether they exist or not. Really, I don't know if they exist or not. I've never seen one and I have no reason to believe they exist, so I doubt they exist. But really I don't know.


Again, I have no problem saying I don't know Apparently, neither do I.

Can you provide any more evidence for your God then I can provide for aliens? I can't think of anything at the moment and am not really motivated to find this evidence for you, because I pretty sure that whatever it is won't be good enough for you.

So the idea that there is a god of some sort is enough to claim a common thread? If that's the only commonality you can think of, then you're grasping at straws when you claim all religions share a kernal of truth. You asked for a common thread. I gave the first thing I could think of--not the only thing I could think of. But I did answer your question.

Altruism is not an illusion to me, people make themselves feel good by helping others.... They are serving themselves vicariously. Perhaps I just have a better understanding of altruism than you do. Via Google I found the following definitions for altruism:
"the view that the well-being of others should have as much importance for us as the well-being of ourselves. Some argue that altruism, even if it is desirable, is not possible, and that our ethics must be based on egoism" I think you are one of these folks. Here's another:
"form of behaviour in which an individual risks lowering its fitness for the benefit of another" This seems to fly in the face of your whole "survival" and "show me the benefit" principle. Here's another:
"Acting for the sake of other people's interests" And:
"Behavior that benefits another individual at a cost to the actor"

And there's one that supports you: "unselfish concern for the needs or interests of others, providing gratification vicariously or from their responses".

Based on the above, I don't think it's fair to call your "understanding" of altruism better than mine--it's just different.

Because he would feel worse if he sat by and did nothing. In which case trying and failing feels better than not trying at all... my definition holds. I'm lost again. What definition of what?

That question is easy enough to answer: In my opinion, feeding the hungry is better because more people receive the benefit of the action, and no one is injured by the action. How do you get the potential gambler to see that benefit if she is not one of the people benefitting? I'm not saying feeding the hungry is the only option. But you did say it's better than gambling in Vegas. How do you get this potential gambler to see it your way?

I don't care if you're buying my justification or not. You shouldn't buy your own justification if you don't buy the grocery thief's. If you do buy his justification, that is another matter. Do you?

You have yet to demonstrate how this relates to God's treatment of Angels. Does he need them to survive? No, but that appears not to matter, because you implied that people who kill and exploit animals are justified even if they don't need to kill or exploit them for their survival.

[Copper Scroll]

You know what would help? What would help is if you said what you actually meant.
I did, but I suppose you ignored the two paragraphs I wrote after "It was the devil's choice, not God's doing." Go back there for your answer. In sum: "when angels act in accordance with God's will, we can reasonably say it is God's doing" and "when the angel disobeys God, we can say it is her choice and not God's doing."

If we could demonstrate that whites were superior to blacks, your arguments would justify their enslavement. I find that repulsive; don't you agree? No. I find it repulsive that you entertain the idea that such a demonstration could ever be made.


Your misunderstanding of child psychology is beyond my ability to repair. I presented an argument stating that the limits of children's rights is at least in part based on power. In response, you say I don't understand child psychology. This is not an argument. (I'm using your words now.)

Then what are the based on? Please explain how a silent God is ana dequate basis for deriving ethics, while reason is not. Answer my question first. You made the claim first--the claim that ethics is based on reason. I might answer your question after you answer mine. Demonstrate how ethics (and love while you're at it) is based on reason.

We are left to figure what those ethics are. Is homosexuality normal, or a sin against God? Notice how many Christians seem to be having trouble figuring out the answer to that? Because you are asking for a broad generalization. Homosexuality cannot simply be tagged right or wrong. The ethics of homosexuality depends on the definition of homosexuality and the situation. The ethics of heterosexuality depends on the definition of heterosexuality and the situation.

When you demonstrate your ability to conduct a rational discussion by addressing the contradiction you continue to present vis-a-vie the angels, We must be speaking two different languages. I have answered this so-called contradiction everytime you asked me to. Next time, I won't and see if you somehow find an answer in my silence.

then I will undertake the effort of explaining John Rawls and the Original Position. Until then, it seems both premature and irrelevant. As an atheist, you have perhaps gotten to used to and comfortable with not having the burden of proof. You have made claims and when asked to defend those claims, you ask a new question or say bullshit like the above. Theists are deserving of some answers too.

I see. You have invented this "percentage" approach to Heaven to justify God making it harder. This "percentage" approach is supported by scripture and reason. It's not an invention by me.

Saying that they choose which percentage of them get to go to heaven does not count as "free will." Why not?

By "force," you mean "undermine our choice
Do you actually mean "force" here, or just "undermine our ability to not take it?" Within the context of that statement, I don't think it matters.

The only "easiness" I am asking for is full knowlegde of what God wants. There is no way to go beyond that; full knowledge is an objective end-point. It also undermines our free will and our purpose for living. We're going in circles.

So what? It still remains a choice. But it's not a free one.

Once again you are saying that God does not want only those who are mad with hate and jealousy to go to hell; rather, God wants people who are only slightly hateful and jealous to go to hell. God wants us to choose our fate freely.

Why would God want anyone to go to hell? Why would God object to an arrangment where only the insanely hateful go to Hell? Above you concluded that I am saying no one goes to hell. Here it is: No one goes to hell; it's just that more of the "special" people go to Heaven.

Certainly none of us humans would object. If we had this knowledge, we would not even be human. We'd be nothing like we are. We'd be angels. We are not angels. Our purpose is to choose righteousness freely.

Your words speak for themselves. Then quit trying to speak for them.

If it is not dialogue, it is monologue. It would be more like a dialogue if you answered more of my questions.

If your position is that knowledge of God's will constrains our choice, then why would God give us any knowledge of his will? Circles and circles. I answered this question! The knowledge makes eternity accessible. The question I said "I don't know" to was "shouldn't we make our choice in complete ignorance of God's will?" Should or shouldn't? I don't know, but we don't make our choice in complete ignorance.

We're getting the point where, if I bothered to go back over recent pages of this thread, I can just pull quotes from myself to answer your increasingly stupid questions... while you continue to ignore mine.

Why is God constraining our choices to a particular degree? so that eternity is accessible for us and so that we can choose it freely.

When I say, "you lose," what I mean is, "your position has failed to be supported by logic and reason." and you have failed to show me how.

I don't want to believe it; it's what you said. You typed those words. In no way did I write "I don't know" as any "ultimate defense."

I asked you a question about the logical extension of your position, and you said, "I don't know." "Shouldn't we make our choice in complete ignorance of God's will?" How is this a logical extension of anything I wrote?

Ok... could you tell us what word does mean "eliminate choice?" No. Does such a word necessarily have to exist?

To force someone to take an action is to deny them the ability to choose their action. Where did you get this definition? The definition I used in my last post comes from "wordnet" on Princeton's website. You have not refuted it.

That is what the word "force" means. It is what the word "compel" means. That is how you use the word apparently. I used it in accordance with how I always use it and how the dictionary defines it. They are not synonyms for "undermine." I never said that they were. <edit>

What I actually said was that forcing someone to do something undermines the freedom of their choice. How is that saying "force" and "undermine" are synonyms?

[Chaupoline]

Atheists don't believe in God, so the issue IS whether or not God exists. The question isn't one of morality. (This forum is on the Existence of God, and this thread is was created to try to determine what God is.) Morals can exist with or without God.

If you've paid much attention to the discussion on this board, it usually consists of atheists explaining why they don't feel there is any reason to believe in a God. Theists try to counter the arguments, and the atheists then point out the holes in their logic. Sometimes the debate starts with a theist presenting an argument, then the atheist demonstrates the holes, then the theist attempts to patch or explain away the holes. Atheists rarely lower themselves to saying "You're stupid because you disagree;" however, several theists have been observed using a very similar argument when the holes in their other arguments have been pointed out.

So what are the holes in my version?

Well, call me silly, but I think that the interpretation of the Bible is the religion.

I meant religion overall, not the brand of Christianity that you have a problem with.

1. Why can't God share full knowledge of what He wants with us?

I thought he has. He wants us to work together and respect one another.

2. Can angels choose, despite having their choice constrained?

The only choice that they have had constrained is with their interaction with Mankind. Like Prometheus and the fire, the Grigorii chose to interbreed and teach Mankind things that we were not meant to learn. Lucifer and the Grigorii didn't do these things because they cared about us. They did these things because they wanted to subjugate and then destroy us.

3a. If choice is still possible with full knowledge, then why do we have to choose with less knowledge? Doesn't that just make it easier for people to fail?

People understand things better when they come to the conclusion on their own. Knowledge given to us about the natural world will not make us better people. As long as people are able to procreate and keep the race alive, we are not at risk. God's major concern is how we interact with one another.

3b. Why does God share any knowledge of his will with us? Wouldn't any knowledge constrain our choice? Thus, shouldn't we make our choice in complete ignorance of God's will?

This is why I had believed that God didn't intend to make his presence known to Mankind.

[Stephen T-B]

"God's major concern is how we interact with one another.".

How do you know this, Chaupoline?

(The degree to which people know the mind of god always impresses me).

[Yahzi]

I did, but I suppose you ignored the two paragraphs I wrote after "It was the devil's choice, not God's doing." Go back there for your answer. In sum: "when angels act in accordance with God's will, we can reasonably say it is God's doing" and "when the angel disobeys God, we can say it is her choice and not God's doing."
You have utterly missed the point. Again.

You asserted that angels cannot choose as humans do. Thus, every time you assert that angels can choose, in ways which are apparently indistinguishable from humans, you contradict yourself.

If angels can freely choose evil despite having full knowledge of God's will, then the reason God does not reveal his full will to humans cannot be to preserve their ability to choose. Since choice is preserved even for the angels.

You have explained that God does not reveal his will to humans so that they may have a free choice; you have explained that angels know God's will and thus do not have a free choice; you have explained that angels are capable of choosing despite not haveing a free choice.

This leads us to the conclusion that God wants to maximize the freedom of our choice, by removing as much knowledge as possible. But then we have to ask - why doesn't he remove all knowledge? If God wants to select for people who chose righteousness and goodness for their own sake, without any concern for heaven or hell, then why does God even mention heaven or hell in the first place?

If God is interested in people who make their choice without regard to his will, then God is interested in atheists.

If God is interested in people who choose obedience and to follow his will, then he only reduces the number of saved by making his will not crystal clear.

Either your God wants more people than is strictly necessary to go to hell, or your God wants you to shut up about religion so he can watch how the atheists choose.

Under no circumstance does it make sense for God to want you to do his will while failing to reveal his will in clear and unambigous terms. You'd have no problem categorizing a boss who treated you this way as a jerk; why do you have problems catergorizing a God who treats you this way as a jerk?

No. I find it repulsive that you entertain the idea that such a demonstration could ever be made.
You need to look up the word "hypothetical." Your inability to deal in abstract propositions is absolutely fatal to rational debate.

For the record, I never suggested that whites were superior to blacks. I suggested that if it could be shown that they were, your arguments would justify slavery. Rather than respond to this logical point, you have chosen to be outraged at the hypothetical suggestion. As you pointed out before, this is not an argument.

I presented an argument stating that the limits of children's rights is at least in part based on power. In response, you say I don't understand child psychology.
Correct, it is not an argument. It is a statement that your ignorance of a particular field is so complete that no argument is possible in that field. I would first have to educate you on the entire concept of children, responsiblity, and brain development before I could begin to address your misunderstanding.

Answer my question first. You made the claim first
If we are going by first claims, you still have not resolved the contradiction you initially presented.

--the claim that ethics is based on reason.
You don't have to wait for me to answer. You could just go read some philosophy. I even gave you a name to start with. But really, there's tons of books on the subject.

I might answer your question after you answer mine.
Are we down to bargining? And notice - it's only "might" reciprocate. Not a guarantee, just a possibility.

Homosexuality cannot simply be tagged right or wrong.
The number of Christians who agree with this statement is nowhere near a majority. Consequently, this serves as further evidence that God makes his will obscure.

The ethics of homosexuality depends on the definition of homosexuality and the situation. The ethics of heterosexuality depends on the definition of heterosexuality and the situation.
If you don't know what the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality are, I suggest consulting a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/). It's only a click away.

As for the situtation, I have no idea what this could possibly mean. Presumeably you mean that it is wrong to have sex under certain circumstances; but those circumstances are identical for homosexuals and heterosexuals, so I can't see how the situation could matter in any case.

We must be speaking two different languages. I have answered this so-called contradiction everytime you asked me to. Next time, I won't and see if you somehow find an answer in my silence.
You may have noticed that other people keep asking about the same contradiction. This should suggest that the problem is not with my comprehension, but with your answer.

Theists are deserving of some answers too.
What have theists go to do with it? We're talking about you.

This "percentage" approach is supported by scripture and reason. It's not an invention by me.
Then it should be a relatively well-known fact about the scriptures. Could you provide a link to any sect that espouses this doctrine? Because I asked my dad the fundie, and he absolutely rejects that scripture supports a person's partial ascendance into heaven.

Perhaps this is your personal interpretation of scripture; but that just brings us back to the notion that God has been most obscure in revealing his will, since even Christians cannot agree on the important details.

Within the context of that statement, I don't think it matters.
But the context is the same as the original issue!

But it's not a free one.

God wants us to choose our fate freely.

Our purpose is to choose righteousness freely.
Then why does he constrain our choice by letting us know about heaven and hell at all?

I already know the answer to this question: you will say, "I don't know."

You present an argument. When the argument is shown to depend on an irrational assumption, you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "I don't know." Yet we all know perfectly well that if you were presented with an argument that affected you personally (say, a criminal trial) and depended on an irrational assumption, you would be outraged.

Yet you expect us to swallow your irrational justifications. This is called "hypocrisy." Look it up.

It would be more like a dialogue if you answered more of my questions.
If you wanted dialogue, you should have answered our original questions in a friendly and informative manner, instead of suggesting that force, compel, and undermine are synonyms. We are still waiting for a satisfactory answer to the original issue.

I answered this question! The knowledge makes eternity accessible.
But not coherently. You seem to be saying that God has to set his will as a light in the fog, so we can know how to find our way to that light. But He can't remove the fog and make it easy for us to find the path, because then we wouldn't be making a free choice. Even though the angels, who have a map of the path, can still choose not to follow it. It's just not a "free" choice for them. But you can't explain why God doesn't make the light bright enough that at least Christians could agree on where the path is.

No. Does such a word necessarily have to exist?
I would think that a word which means "to eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise" would be quite handy.

Where did you get this definition? The definition I used in my last post comes from "wordnet" on Princeton's website. You have not refuted it.


force ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrs, frs)
n.
1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
2.
a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.

3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.

4.
a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.

5.
a. Military strength.
b. The entire military strength, as of a nation. Often used in the plural.
c. A unit of a nation's military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our forces have at last engaged the enemy.
6. Law. Legal validity.
7. Physics. A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
8. Baseball. A force play.


com·pel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km-pl)
tr.v. com·pelled, com·pel·ling, com·pels
1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation. See Synonyms at force.
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway: “The land, in a certain, very real way, compels the minds of the people� (Barry Lopez).


un·der·mine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ndr-mn)
tr.v. un·der·mined, un·der·min·ing, un·der·mines
1. To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation: Water has undermined the stone foundations.
2. To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap: Late hours can undermine one's health.
3. To dig a mine or tunnel beneath.
That is how you use the word apparently. I used it in accordance with how I always use it and how the dictionary defines it.
It is not how the rest of the English speaking world uses the word. It is not how the dictionary defines it. You will note that in the dictionary definition above, force and compel are both used in each other's definitions, and explicitly listed as synomyns. However, neither the word force or compel appears in the definition of undermine, and the word undermine does not appear in the definition of force and compel. I have highlighted in red the meanings of the words as you employed them. As anyone can see, they are not the same.

I never said that they were.
You used the words force and compel, and then argued they only meant undermind. I won't bother quoting your posts to this effect, but they are matter of public record and available in this thread. Like, for instance, in the following sentence.

What I actually said was that forcing someone to do something undermines the freedom of their choice. How is that saying "force" and "undermine" are synonyms?
You are saying that to do X (to force an action) is the same as to do Y (to undermine freedom of choice). How is that not implying that to do X is to do Y? This is why we keep saying you are using force and undermine as synomyns, because you keep using them as verbs in sentences that mean the same thing.

And then, when we ask you what word you would use that means "remove all possibilty of choice," you respond by saying, "Does such a word necessarily have to exist?"

It appears, from the difficulty of definitions and even sentence structure, that English is not adequate to express the refinements of your ethereal theology.

[Yahzi]

I thought he has. He wants us to work together and respect one another...

This is why I had believed that God didn't intend to make his presence known to Mankind.
How could God share his knowledge of what he wants with us without making his presence known?

And what do you mean, "didn't intend?" Are you implying God made a mistake?

[Copper Scroll]

If angels can freely choose evil despite having full knowledge of God's will, then the reason God does not reveal his full will to humans cannot be to preserve their ability to choose.. not to to preserve our ability to choose, but to preserve the freedom of that choice.

This leads us to the conclusion that God wants to maximize the freedom of our choice, by removing as much knowledge as possible. But then we have to ask - why doesn't he remove all knowledge? The knowledge we do have make eternity accessible for us.

If God wants to select for people who chose righteousness and goodness for their own sake, without any concern for heaven or hell, then why does God even mention heaven or hell in the first place? Two answers:
1. Heaven and hell are facts of life. It is assumed that God exists and has a plan for perfection in our world, then reason dictates that some things must cease while others do not.
2. It's like raising a child. You cannot realistically expect a child to do right for its own sake. For quite some time, you will have to find ways of rewarding this child for doing right. Once the child develops certain habits and understanding about righteousness, the child has become an adult and does not need the same sort of rewards. God, I think, expects us to mature in this way. Unfortunately, many of us seem not to.

If God is interested in people who choose obedience and to follow his will, then he only reduces the number of saved by making his will not crystal clear. No. We reduce this number by ignoring or going against what we do know is right and rational.

Under no circumstance does it make sense for God to want you to do his will while failing to reveal his will in clear and unambigous terms. The revelation of God's will is clear enough for me and for many. Again, it is not fair to say God hides this will. Your analogy about the Bridge Out sign doesn't fly. God has told us that the bridge is out, but many of us ignored God or got distracted. If God threw up a sign every time a wrong action was possible for us, God would be directing our every action. If God directed our every action, we would not be free and we would not have a purpose. Now, if God did direct our every action, it would still be possible to ignore or disobey God (as the devil does). But this would require a suspension of our rationality and ethics. Without these, we would be nothing like we are. That's why I keep saying that if we had the "full knowledge" you speak of we would be nothing like we are. We would not be human.

You'd have no problem categorizing a boss who treated you this way as a jerk; My boss hires me because of certain qualification she knows I have. Based on these qualifications, she can reasonably trust that I and my coworkers will understand her instructions and execute them correctly. By not standing over me to make sure I always do what she says to do correctly, she is not being a jerk. She would be a jerk if she did stand over me and micromanage me.

Correct, it is not an argument. It is a statement that your ignorance of a particular field is so complete that no argument is possible in that field. I would first have to educate you on the entire concept of children, responsiblity, and brain development before I could begin to address your misunderstanding. This is such a ridiculous cop out. The (supported) notion that the limitations we place on the rights of children is based in part on power goes against certain principles basic to child and developmental psychology? I have to be a child psychologist in order to understand why we limit the rights of children?

If we are going by first claims, you still have not resolved the contradiction you initially presented. I answer it every time. And then your description of the contradiction changes every time.

You don't have to wait for me to answer. You could just go read some philosophy. Cop out number two. I guess this means that those philosophy books which have provided you your position on this issue are so beyond your understanding that you can't paraphrase them. Sad, ridiculous, and fascinating. Besides, different philosophers say all sorts of things.

I even gave you a name to start with. But really, there's tons of books on the subject. <edit>

Are we down to bargining? Well interrogations do eventually come to a point of bargaining. I am being interrogated and you're not answering my questions. I thought I might get answers from you if I withhold mine.

If you don't know what the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality are, I suggest consulting a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/). It's only a click away. So is wikipedia which provides three significantly different and multifaceted definitions for each.

As for the situtation, I have no idea what this could possibly mean. Presumeably you mean that it is wrong to have sex under certain circumstances; but those circumstances are identical for homosexuals and heterosexuals, so I can't see how the situation could matter in any case. Here's one situation: When increased reproduction is vitally important for the sustenance of a certain society, then heterosexual sex appears more valuable and better a practice than homosexual sex. We currently are not in this situation, but there have been times in history when we have been. Since that situation is not eternal, no broad generalization can be made about the ethics of homosexuality or heterosexuality.

You may have noticed that other people keep asking about the same contradiction. This should suggest that the problem is not with my comprehension, but with your answer. If you go to church and make a claim and the whole congregation tells you that you don't make sense, then I suppose you don't make sense. Right? Besides, you and one other guy are hardly a congregation.

Then it should be a relatively well-known fact about the scriptures. Could you provide a link to any sect that espouses this doctrine? No, but so what.

Because I asked my dad the fundie, and he absolutely rejects that scripture supports a person's partial ascendance into heaven. Like most of us, your dad is probably wrong about a lot of things. (I'm sure you can attest to this.) Tell your dad to read Matthew 18:8-9.

You present an argument. When the argument is shown to depend on an irrational assumption, You asking the question "Shouldn't we not know about heaven and hell and other things we know about God's will?" is not an argument. What irrational assumption have I made?
You seem to be saying that God has to set his will as a light in the fog, so we can know how to find our way to that light. And what I'm actually saying is that God has provided enough knowledge and sense for us to know right from wrong and the freedom to act. If we did not have our knowledge and sense, we would not know right from wrong. If God told us exactly what to do in every instance, we would not be acting freely.

It is not how the rest of the English speaking world uses the word. Oh no? So after the bank robbery, when one of the hostages says "Don't arrest me, officer. Don't lock me up, judge. I was forced to give the robber the money" then he is misused the word "forced"? He could have held back and refused to give up the money; in other words, he still had a choice. Can he not use the word "force" in this context correctly?

You are saying that to do X (to force an action) is the same as to do Y (to undermine freedom of choice). How is that not implying that to do X is to do Y? It is implying that if X = to force an action and Y = to undermine freedom of choice--not if X = force and Y = undermine. It is not implying that "force" means "undermine". Somehow the part about "freedom of choice" becomes insignificant to you. It is certainly not insignificant. You must be yanking my leg, Karate Kid.

[AZSuperman]

Quote 1
You cannot realistically expect a child to do right for its own sake. For quite some time, you will have to find ways of rewarding this child for doing right. Once the child develops certain habits and understanding about righteousness, the child has become an adult and does not need the same sort of rewards.
Quote 2
God has provided enough knowledge and sense for us to know right from wrong and the freedom to act. If we did not have our knowledge and sense, we would not know right from wrong.
So which is it CS, do we learn right from wrong from our parents, as stated in quote #1, or did God provide us knowledge instinctively as implied by Quote #2?

[AZSuperman]

It is implying that if X = to force an action and Y = to undermine freedom of choice--not if X = force and Y = undermine. It is not implying that "force" means "undermine". Somehow the part about "freedom of choice" becomes insignificant to you. It is certainly not insignificant. You must be yanking my leg, Karate Kid.
According to your intended meaning of the words, are the following two sentences stating the same thing?
By forcing the angels, God undermines their choice.
By undermining the angels, God forces their choice.
If not, please explain the difference. If so, how can you now claim you're not using the words as synonyms?

[AZSuperman]

You'll note I retracted my question about an "end goal" and asked you about a result.
And I answered, the result is an ever changing variety of species.

I don't think it's a "given" about evolution that it must last forever. You're saying that you think it will last forever, so it does not have an end result. I accept this answer. You say new animals (and, I assume, other living beings) will keep evolving. You also implied that these living beings getter better through evolution when you spoke of more effective hunters and more elusive prey. Again, by saying this process will last forever, it reminds me of eternity and the fulfillment of God's plan.
It sounds a lot like it, but it involved hunting and killing, and a violent fight for survival... other than that it's pretty similar. :)

No, the world is not perfect right now, but we are striving to make it better; the world is striving for perfection, I suspect, in various ways. Some things and some people who exist now will always exist as the world becomes more perfect. So, it is happening now.
The question was whether or not God's plan will be fullfilled. I don't want to get into a definition war, as is already happening elsewhere on this thread, so instead I'll just rephrase the question. Do you think God's plan (a world existing in perfect peace) will ever be actualized? Do you believe the entire world will EVER be existing completely in peace?

If these aliens were as powerful as God, I suppose it wouldn't matter whether I submit or not. But aliens as powerful as God can't exist.
You avoided the question. Would you submit to slavery by an alien race if it could be proven that this race was superior to humans?

You lose me here. In thinking, if you are not autonomous, you are not thinking for yourself. If a decision you make is not made independently, you are not really making a decision.
I agree... Since it has been demonstrated that the angels have the ability to make independent decisions (Satan) they MUST be thinking for themselves and therefore no different than humans in their ability to make decisions.

Why don't you show me an example of the kind of independence humans have that angels don't. What can we do, which can't be done by angels? I'm not sure if this is specific enough: In a moral dilemma, we must determine which action is right and decide to take this action. In making this determination and decision we weight a lot of different things (consequences and variables) and make determinations and decision about the relative importance of these various things. Angels don't have so many distractions. They know exactly what is right without having their vision obscured by lower motivations.
Make it more specific if needed... Give me any example of a level of independence humans have that angels do not.
Granted that they know that righteousness brings eternity and sin death, the decision is already made for them by the one who gave them this knowledge--God. So in obeying God they are not acting independently. Their choices are not as free as ours.
So, knowledge = restriction. Is that right? The more we know and understand, the less real freedom we have.

[Gawen]

Just a wee nit-pick here:

1. Heaven and hell are facts of life. It is assumed that God exists and has a plan for perfection in our world, then reason dictates that some things must cease while others do not. I have seen neither Heaven nor Hell. Please show us either one.
But wait, here you say it is assumed that God exists. Assuming is not fact. Presupposing is not fact. If we assume God exists, then we must assume heaven and hell exists. How does 'reason' come into play?

If we assume Santa exists, does this mean that his workshop at the north pole, elves and red-nosed reindeer are a fact of life?

[AZSuperman]

You said yourself that goodness should be done for its own sake. But then again you also said that what is good is determined by its benefit to you. So goodness, to you, is dependent upon your own interests. I'm confused. Have I summed you up correctly?
I never said good was determined by it's benefit to you. I said a person will only continue to perform an action if they feel they are receiving, or will receive, a benefit.

For example: I donated time, money, and gifts to a local orphanage this holiday season, because I enjoy seeing the look of joy on the childrens faces when they see Santa delivering gifts for each of them. I donate regularly to my local United Way, because I want to help improve my community by helping the less fortunate. I have donated my time and effort to Habitat for Humanity by helping them build a home for a needy family. I don't donate my time and money because of any monetary reward, or because of any hope for a postmotem reward. I donate because I enjoy the emotional benefit I receive, it makes me feel good.

By not "seriously considering it", I am not claiming that fairies cannot be. I am saying I don't care whether they exist or not. Really, I don't know if they exist or not. I've never seen one and I have no reason to believe they exist, so I doubt they exist. But really I don't know.
If you substitue the word "God(s)" for fairies, you'll have a statement most atheists would agree with.

I can't think of anything at the moment and am not really motivated to find this evidence for you, because I pretty sure that whatever it is won't be good enough for you.
Until you provide such evidence, your claims about God carry just as much weight as the claims about fairies, which you were quick to dismiss.

I don't think it's fair to call your "understanding" of altruism better than mine--it's just different.
Alright, I'll agree with you... if you can provide an example of a non-fictional person performing a service for someone else without any personal, emotional, or spiritual benefit (in this life or the next).

Because he would feel worse if he sat by and did nothing. In which case trying and failing feels better than not trying at all... my definition holds.I'm lost again. What definition of what?
Altruism

How do you get the potential gambler to see that benefit if she is not one of the people benefitting? I'm not saying feeding the hungry is the only option. But you did say it's better than gambling in Vegas. How do you get this potential gambler to see it your way?
I'm not sure why you want to coerce someone into seeing things your way. Someone can't be forced into agreeing with any view, regardless of how good you or I may think it is. If you want me to provide a fail safe method which would empty the casinos in Vegas if implimented, you're not going to get it.

That being said... the best way to increase donatations for a cause is to increase awareness of that cause. Humans have an amazing ability to empathize. We can imagine the world from anothers perspective. When we see another person suffering, part of us is able to imagine the world from that point of view. By easing the suffering we're able to imagine the difference we made in that person's life, and it makes us feel good. If the potential gambler was not aware of the severity of the world hunger problem she may not have ever empathized with the people in that situation. Once faced with the reality of the problem, she may (or may not) empathize with the people in that situation, and she may (or may not) choose to donate to the cause in order to help decrease the suffering by some small degree.

You shouldn't buy your own justification if you don't buy the grocery thief's. If you do buy his justification, that is another matter. Do you?The world is rarely as black and white as you seem to be painting it out to be. If a man steals food from a grocery store in order to feed his family is it still illegal? Yes. Is it morally wrong? That depends on the circumstances. If I had no money to buy food, and no one to borrow from, then I wouldn't hesitate to resort to stealing to make sure my family was fed... The line between right and wrong is not always clear cut.

You have yet to demonstrate how this relates to God's treatment of Angels. Does he need them to survive?No
Why do you continue this line of discussion if it has no bearing on any argument you're trying to make.
that appears not to matter, because you implied that people who kill and exploit animals are justified even if they don't need to kill or exploit them for their survival.
No, I said animals that are used for our survival are still used for our survival even if other options are available. For example, if I eat a steak instead of a salad, then the flesh of a dead cow was used to sustain my life... even though salad was an option.

However, I get the feeling you are not truely aware of just how important animals are to our survival. I already mentioned insulin dependent diabetics, and you didn't argue that animal deaths were unjustified in their case, here are a few others for you to consider:

Over 350 pharmaceuticals come from animals. Including cold and allergy medications, vitamin supplements, and mineral supplements.
Treatments for anemia, emphysema, malaria, stroke, and heart attack are all derived from animal products.
Ever taken a medication of any kind? There are hundreds of people who would die if they were unable to take their daily medications. Guess what? The capules that hold those medications are made of gelatin. (Which is derived from the bones, tendons, and skins of animals.) Even medications which aren't made from animal products are delivered in capules that are.
Gelatine is also found in x-ray film.
Latex surgical gloves contain tallow, derived from animal products.
Almost every major medical breakthrough in the last century was a direct result of animal testing. (Would you prefer we test on humans?)
Plastic and rubber, although primarily petroleum products, use animal fats. Plastic and rubber are found in incubators used to keep premature babies alive, as well as artifical lungs, hearts, dialasis machines, MRI's, X-ray machines, and almost every medical devine used in hositals, doctors offices, and ambulances.
Cleaners and disinfectants also contain animal products. (Next time you go in for surgery, tell the doctor not to bother sterilizing the instruments because you don't agree with using animals for our own survival.)
Cardboard and paper also use animal products in the manufacturing process. Without cardboard and paper, it would be impossible for the doctor to write a prescription or have the medication delivered to the hospital.
Drywall, plywood, concrete, and even steel contain animal products, without these items most modern buildings would not exist. (Providing a shelter is definately a use which sustains human lives.)
Fertilizers derived from animal products improve crop yeild. Without the fertilizers we would not be able to harvest nearly as much food from each feild, which would increase the cost of all natural grains, and products derived from plant oils... and increase to total worldwide hunger.
About 45% of every food animal is used to create something other than food.

Now that's its been conclusively proven that we DO need animals to survive, (in more ways than just as food) would you please explain how this justifies Gods enslavement of angels?

[Copper Scroll]

Just a wee nit-pick here:

I have seen neither Heaven nor Hell. Please show us either one. On a personal and internal level, I think you probably have experienced both; you just don't call it heaven or hell. When I appraise myself, I judge my attributes, my habits, my traits, etc. Some I judge positively and I try to increase their use. In this, I am striving for perfection--heaven. But I also notice my flaws and weaknesses and I try to remove these from my life. In this, I am condemning those parts of myself to hell, reducing them (hopefully) to non-existence. I may spend the rest of my life stamping them out.

Now the world around us experiences heaven and hell the same way. The world (like the best of us) is striving for perfection. In this, it changes--removing its flaws from existence (condemning them t