Originally posted by KellyJayThe only thing that is 'low' around here is your inability to support your false statements which you claim come from the Bible.
Already, again this isn't communication it is pure insult. You didn't even make it into the
first piece without lowering this into your normal spew.
People like you are weak-minded. You focus on others and their behaviour rather that fact and truth which should be the core of any worthwhile debate or discussion.
Truth from the teachings of Christ should be your focus as a professed Christian but you are a failure.
31 Aug 16
Originally posted by Rajk999Again filled with slander and insult, nothing of substance and you wondered why I felt you
The only thing that is 'low' around here is your inability to support your false statements which you claim come from the Bible.
People like you are weak-minded. You focus on others and their behaviour rather that fact and truth which should be the core of any worthwhile debate or discussion.
Truth from the teachings of Christ should be your focus as a professed Christian but you are a failure.
were not worth the effort? Pick apart what I said and show me how Jesus dying for me
was not something I could strive for? Pick apart that God calls us by name and we are not
the ones moving to God on our own? You have no stinking idea, none outside of the hand
picked scriptures you use to twist the truth about God's gift to mankind you've no real
grasp of truths in scripture. You have to ignore much of it to promote your false version
of truth.
Originally posted by KellyJayTrying to change the topic again? Where in the Bible is there support for this:
Again filled with slander and insult, nothing of substance and you wondered why I felt you
were not worth the effort? Pick apart what I said and show me how Jesus dying for me
was not something I could strive for? Pick apart that God calls us by name and we are not
the ones moving to God on our own? You have no stinking idea, none outside of the hand
pi ...[text shortened]... p of truths in scripture. You have to ignore much of it to promote your false version
of truth.
"..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God."
Where?
31 Aug 16
Originally posted by Rajk999It all starts with God not us.
Trying to change the topic again? Where in the Bible is there support for this:
"..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God."
Where?
John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Galatians 4:6
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Acts 3:26
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt starts with God .. of course. Who is doubting that?
It all starts with God not us.
John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Galatians 4:6
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Acts 3:26
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to yo ...[text shortened]... e should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
You said "..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God."
Where is the part about "WE ARE NOT TO STRIVE OR REACH TO GOD"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Aug 16
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
Your argument is inconsistent. You attempt to refute reincarnation because we cannot bring to mind memories from previous lives.
I did ask if that was the case with the defender of reincarnation. I think it turns out that he said he didn't believe in it. I think I asked if anyone who DOES believe have such memories.
This was my question.
I think it is contributing evidence to doubt reincarnation.
However, if souls cannot carry memories beyond one life time then there is a problem with the final judgement. So you then have God giving all the souls their memories back.
You err in your understanding I think.
What I questioned was Person B remembering the life of Person A from whom he supposedly was reincarnated.
I said nothing about Person A not being able to remember his own (Person A's) deeds. And if he does not remember some details (which is applicable even during a person's life) God on the day of judgment can bring it back to his recollection.
God's record is infallible and lacking nothing.
In which case there would appear not to be a block on souls possessing memories. There is no reason to insist on the souls losing their memories acquired during life,
I am not insisting on souls not remembering their OWN deeds respectively.
I am saying souls remembering PAST souls (from whom they allegedly were reincarnated from) is not demonstrated.
Let's take you.
You remember your deeds from last year.
But deeds of some previous life from whom you were reincarnated? You have no clue.
Besides, the rewards or punishments due THAT person pertain to THAT person.
And the rewards of punishments due YOU pertain to YOU,
To WHOM is the final "salvation" of escape and release from this recycling ?
To WHOM is it a benefit?
WHO in the line of various souls along the long road of transmigration, is aware of the "happiness" of final release ?
Perhaps this analogy will express my thought. Let us say you have a long train with one person in each car. There are 30 cars and 30 people in each car. Reincarnation at the end is like giving a reward not to any person in the 30 cars but to the train track.
The Bible has judgment (and forgiveness for that matter too) pertaining to EACH person individually. And a discrete person is aware of the blessing or misfortune of judgment pertaining to them individually so.
so there is no reason reincarnation should not work and you cannot show that the existence of a personal God is necessary for absolute justice.
Tell me. If person A murders and reincarnates to person B who is better, who then reincarnates to person C who is a little better, who reincarnates to person D, so on and so forth until person Z is released to the ONENESS of the Cosmic Oversoul and oblivion, how was the murder committed by person A justified ?
It cannot be undone. It cannot be attributed to person B, or C or D. For it was the deed of person A.
Explain that to me please.
31 Aug 16
Originally posted by sonshipYour argument is inconsistent. You attempt to refute reincarnation because we cannot bring to mind memories from previous lives.
I did ask if that was the case with the defender of reincarnation. I think it turns out that he said he didn't believe in it. I think I asked if anyone who DOES believe have such memories.
Thi ...[text shortened]... to person B, or C or D. For it was the deed of [b] person A.
Explain that to me please.[/b]
I think it is contributing evidence to doubt reincarnation.You've missed the point of my argument. What matters is that you cannot show anything internally inconsistent with the notion of reincarnation not whether it's a live option or not. It demonstrates that God is not necessary for justice, not that God does not just happen to be responsible for justice.
I am not insisting on souls not remembering their OWN deeds respectively.Right, fundamental problem with your view. The soul is immortal, in the Christian cosmology it occupies one body and then goes off to be judged. In a reincarnation cosmology the same soul occupies more than one body it lives its lives consecutively. That while it occupies a particular body it only has access to the memories it had while occupying it is not a barrier to the soul retaining memories from former lives, it just doesn't have access to them. There is nothing to stop a soul having access to the memories of all its lives between incarnations, possibly having thoughts along the lines of: "And all that happened because of what I did in the life just before that one...".
I am saying souls remembering PAST souls (from whom they allegedly were reincarnated from) is not demonstrated.
So you've done nothing to disprove the logical possibility. In fact you've done nothing to diminish it as a live possibility for this universe.
Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Sure. Why not?
Your view on this matter is embarrassingly schizophrenic. On one hand, you hold that it is of the utmost importance that "ultimate justice" exists. On the other hand, you claim that if it does not exist, then there is no injustice to begin with. Well, I'll ask you again: if there is no injustice to begin with, then why all the fuss ...[text shortened]... .
2.) Or before God on some day of final judgment in the presence of Absolute righteousness. .
Injustice does exists - temperarily. I think it is a self evident matter. Human beings know "unfair" when they encounter "unfair" or "unjust". We do not dismiss it as an illusion. We recognize it.
This state of injustice is not forever or from now on. My faith is that it is a temporary imbalance which is going inevitably be rectified.
Fair enough, this is your view on the matter. Instances of injustice clearly exist but will eventually all be rectified by God, the great cosmic moral balancer, in some mysterious fashion down the road. That's fine, albeit hand-wavy and evidentially challenged. But why, then, did you previously advance the idea that if such rectification does not happen then injustice does not exist? This is clearly more schizophrenia on your part. You're acknowledging here that instances of injustice obviously exist, to the point that it is simply a "self evident matter". Well, if it's such a self-evident matter that injustice exists, then it cannot also be that the existence of injustice is mysteriously and non-obviously contingent on some dubious Christian eschatological commitments. Something has to give here, so I assume you are willing to retract the earlier eliminative claim against injustice, seeing as how you now claim that the existence of injustice is self-evident?
3.) Some of us recognize One in history who appears just, impartial, authoritative, and powerful and promising that injustice is temporary.
If there is a candidate for the judging of all men, no one better fits the bill then Jesus Christ.
In conjunction with He being so qualified, it is He who, at least in His mind, had to go to such lengths that we be SAVED from the inevitable divine appointment with God the perfect Judge.
He not only acted like He is the most qualified to judge, He also took the most seriously that an redemption and reconciliation to God for us all was necessary.
From your writings, one thing is exceedingly clear. God plays a very strong narrative role within your worldview. Indeed, this narrative function is so entrenched in your worldview that you seem positively incapable of merely conceiving of how these sorts of things could play out without God. You've already admitted as much, implying that you practically cannot conceive of things like justice and morality in the absence of God. You've already made this clear, so you can spare us more detailing of this. As I mentioned before, your inability to conceive of such things without God does not justify the claim that God is necessary for such things. That's the point that matters here, and it is the one you keep failing to substantively address.
The powerful sense of a transcendent goodness suggests that intuitively men think of a rightness far above themselves.
Let us say the rapist, murdering pedophile senses remorse. And after years in concealment actually turns himself in and confesses to his crime. Things like this have happened. Something in his conscience is so powerful that he, knowing that he may die, comes forward to clear up the hidden matter.
It doesn't do anything for the prolonging of his life. Why does he do it?
When self sacrificing rectification appears in men, I think it testifies to an innate sense of a rightness so transcendent that it approaches and possibly confirms an absolute morality must be met.
That is God awareness or very close to God awareness.
….I think this is something put in man by his Creator.
If you are failing to understand how such moral sensibilities could register in creatures like us humans without needing to posit their implantation by God, then I would strongly urge you to check out material like the Joyce book that I already recommended to KJ.
Is the sense of moral oughtness just a chemical matter in the body ?
No. That would be a rather large notional mistake, to confuse the content of some mental state with the explanation or etiological particulars of the mental state. I see this sort of confusion a lot. Persons will often try to advance the claim that to give a naturalistic (or materialistic or evolutionary) explanation to how things like love or moral sensibilities, etc, arise is also to effectively hollow out their content, robbing them of any authenticity (and it does not escape attention that you worded it as “…just a chemical matter...”, implying exactly this sort of hollowing out, thieving process). But that is surely false. Again, it is predicated on a simple notional error regarding content and etiology.
Regarding the "moral oughtness" and the transcendent nature of morality that you refer to in this post, at some point you and Fetchmyjunk, et al, are going to have to substantively address why we should think it ultimately necessitates God or your God-narratives. It seems to me that what is really at issue is the authoritative backing, or lack thereof, of moral judgments. We like to think that at least some first-order public moral judgments carry a lot of clout in both of two ways. For one, there is no simple opting out of them based on idiosyncratic concerns. If in response to the dictum that one ought not go around torturing people, someone countered that, but hey, they really enjoy doing that sort of thing and it gives them a real sense of meaning and personal achievement in life, we would certainly expect such a response should fail to deflect applicability of the dictum. So there is an imperativeness there that cannot be deflected by appeal to personal ends. Second, there is the issue of authoritative backing. We like to think there is something underlying the judgment that confers on it authority that cannot be ignored. I take it that the primary concern you and Fetchmyjunk have is that these sorts of imperativeness and authoritativeness cannot exist without God. Okay, but what is your actual argument for that? As I have already tried to express (revisit again Thread 157928), your concerns here are essentially childish. Just as a child cannot conceive outside of the directives and orders of her parents, so too your bewildering incapability to conceive outside of the directives of God. But as the child matures as she should, she begins to understand that morals do not constitutively derive from the directives of her parents; rather, those directives (if they are worthy to be followed in the first place) faithfully embody underlying good reasons and rational considerations in their favor. Somehow you never got this memo and remain morally stunted, a moral midget as it were, still thinking that morals somehow derive from the directives of some higher being. But, in fact, it is the underlying reasons and the structures of those reasons and how they relate to our cognitive apparatus – not directives that embody them – that ultimately confer authoritative backing. The killer to your position is, yet again, found in the Euthyphro dilemma. You can choose the horn in which God remains essential to the constitution of morality, but then you are left with the arbitrarity issue. And if there is one thing that cannot confer any non-ersatz authoritativeness, it would be arbitrarity.
31 Aug 16
Originally posted by Rajk999Well I don't know you spend so much of your time with insults instead of going to the point
It starts with God .. of course. Who is doubting that?
You said "..within the Christian faith [b]we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God."
Where is the part about "WE ARE NOT TO STRIVE OR REACH TO GOD"[/b]
or asking a question who knows what you are complaining about? You again assume things
and run right to insults instead of questions to UNDERSTAND someone else' point. Never
did I imply we were not going to strive, but getting close to God isn't a man made result
which is the end goal with man getting something out of it. This again it goes back to God,
is God involved in what Christianity has over the other beliefs it was being compared too?
The foundations of the other beliefs prompted my response! You have a fast mouth that
goes right to insult before attempting to have a clear understanding of what someone else
means. If you'd spend more time attempting to know what the other person means instead
your foul mouth filled with insults first and ask questions you may find you have more in
agreement than not.
31 Aug 16
Originally posted by LemonJelloWithout a doubt, I've a ton going on now...I ordered the book so I'm waiting on it, the first
I appreciate your following up on it, KJ. I plan to start reading the Willard book this weekend. We can agree that it will take some time to fit this project into our schedules.
chapter is given online so I started there.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSonship, I forgot that the other main element of your concern is that of retributive justice. God is necessitated, so it seems on your view, by considerations of retributive justice and its fulfillment. How this all fits together is frankly less than clear and I don't honestly know what your argument for God's necessity is here. If you don't like the idea that a murderer or a rapist or someone else deserving of some comeuppance could get away scot-free, that is presumably understandable. This of course may be an unpleasant fact regarding imperfect societal systems. And it may also be a fact that God, if he exists, could prevent this sort of thing. None of this warrants the idea that God exists let alone that God is necessary, since the inference here would simply be relying on the fallacy we already discussed: appeal to consequences.
I take it that the primary concern you and Fetchmyjunk have is that these sorts of imperativeness and authoritativeness cannot exist without God. Okay, but what is your actual argument for that?
31 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAbsolutely extraordinary. So brazen.
Well I don't know you spend so much of your time with insults instead of going to the point
or asking a question who knows what you are complaining about? You again assume things
and run right to insults instead of questions to UNDERSTAND someone else' point.
01 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFSince you don't believe in a 'universally correct justice system', from your point of view all justice systems are relative. So any claims you may have about justice are no closer to the truth than anyone else's. So why even waste your time with this discussion? This discussion would only make sense if there were a universally correct justice system in the first place.(Which would mean one person's take on justice can be closer to the truth than someone else's take.)
You asked me for my definition of justice and i gave it. I offered my view on why it exists, how it changes, how it varies, and how it can't be characterized as manifesting itself in "exactly" one way, and the reasons for this. I gave examples.
You, on the other hand, haven't responded to or addressed any of this. You have simply insisted that there is some ...[text shortened]... sed the concept of justice 'out loud' before and the topic arising like this has blindsided you.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo are you the only one who can decide upon what exactly warrants the idea that God exists or is necessary? Or are other people allowed to decide for themselves?
Sonship, I forgot that the other main element of your concern is that of retributive justice. God is necessitated, so it seems on your view, by considerations of retributive justice and its fulfillment. How this all fits together is frankly less than clear and I don't honestly know what your argument for God's necessity is here. If you don't like the i ...[text shortened]... erence here would simply be relying on the fallacy we already discussed: appeal to consequences.