Calling out Jorge Borges

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Pretend I asked you to submit to the authority of Santa Claus. What would your reaction be?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My question would be: what's in it for me?[/b]

Wouldn't you first want to know whether Santa Claus exists? Or is that irrelevant if the bribe is big enough?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My question would be: what's in it for me?

You get good presents at Christmas time. That is, if you're not on the "naughty" list.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Speaking of repeating until blue in the face, how is that such behavior is acceptable for you, but verboten for all others? Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God, you sidestep the same and begin anew with your boring and tiresome rant about how inhumane (!) God's actions appear to ...[text shortened]... y pursue the issue in earnest--- eventually realize your emperor ain't got no clothes.

How about you answer it, FreakyKBH?

Do you think what God ordered the Israelites to do to the Amelikite infants was just?

Do you think that, for an omniscient and omnipotent entity, there were any options that were better?

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Speaking of repeating until blue in the face, how is that such behavior is acceptable for you, but verboten for all others? Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about God, you sidestep the same and begin anew with your boring and tiresome rant about how inhumane (!) God's actions appear to ...[text shortened]... y pursue the issue in earnest--- eventually realize your emperor ain't got no clothes.

You can't be forced to acknowledge a sin, when you don't believe in the concept. Furthermore, you cannot lie about something which is based in personal opinion... like lying about what is your favorite flavor of Ice Cream.

Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about Ice Cream, you sidestep the same and begin anew with your boring and tiresome rant about how disgusting (!) chocolate's taste appears to you.

There is no difference between our two 'case in points'.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So what? If it's a good one, why change it?
That's an 'if' that lacks internal support... thus the reason to change it.

Presumptuous much?
Had I not previous exposure to the works of Clemens, BR and yourself, your question of presumption would be warranted. However, given that I've extensively read all three and given that I am very muc ...[text shortened]... hat would your reaction be?[/b]
My question would be: what's in it for me?[/b]

STOP IT!

Listen: YOU are the one with the belief system that has no proof. YOU are the one who should be defending your position. Don't try to turn things around. Just because others don't want to base their entire life on a jump of faith, doesn't mean that they have a problem. YOU do.

Don't even try to tell me I am being close-minded. You have given me NO reason to accept this being. All I have is your word, and since you are an illogical and annoying human being, why would I change myself based on that?

Give me proof of god, or change your argument to focus on why YOU believe it, not why we should, or just shut up and go away.

Thx~ ^^

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Pretend I asked you to submit to the authority of Santa Claus. What would your reaction be?
My question would be: what's in it for me?[/b]

This totally shows the fundamental flaw of your argument: it is not whether God exists or not, but whether there is anything in it for you. There is no logic there. If something doesn't exist, there is NOTHING in it for you.

But say I told you, believe in Santa Clause and you will be happy forever, and if you don't you'll be miserable forever, would you then suddenly convert? You make a poor argument in every possible way.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You get good presents at Christmas time. That is, if you're not on the "naughty" list.

Simply getting a gift of perishable means wouldn't warrant my belief in SC.

Originally posted by Nemesio
How about you answer it, FreakyKBH?

Do you think what God ordered the Israelites to do to the Amelikite infants was just?

Do you think that, for an omniscient and omnipotent entity, there were any options that were better?

Nemesio

Do you think what God ordered the Israelites to do to the Amelikite infants was just?
Absolutely.

Do you think that, for an omniscient and omnipotent entity, there were any options that were better?
All things considered, no better options were available. Let me ask you this: can God's plan survive all doubt?

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
You can't be forced to acknowledge a sin, when you don't believe in the concept. Furthermore, you cannot lie about something which is based in personal opinion... like lying about what is your favorite flavor of Ice Cream.

Case in point: when you are forced to acknowledge that the greatest sin which can be commited is to lie about Ice Cream, you sidest ...[text shortened]... ocolate's taste appears to you.

There is no difference between our two 'case in points'.

No one is forcing anyone to acknowledge anything. The Bible is being quoted, so let's examine the same in the totality of all that it offers, in addition to any outside information that can be brought to bear on any given situation. That seems reasonable, yes?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Simply getting a gift of perishable means wouldn't warrant my belief in SC.

Be not deceived. SANTA will not be mocked! You're going to have one barren Christmas tree this December, buddy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Simply getting a gift of perishable means wouldn't warrant my belief in SC.

You'll never be happy if you don't accept SC in your heart. It's a sin to reject him.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you think what God ordered the Israelites to do to the Amelikite infants was just?
Absolutely.

Do you think that, for an omniscient and omnipotent entity, there were any options that were better?
All things considered, no better options were available. Let me ask you this: can God's plan survive all doubt?[/b]

That makes no sense. God's plan survives as much as all the other religion's god's plans. Why justify infanticide based on this? What the hell?

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
That makes no sense. God's plan survives as much as all the other religion's god's plans. Why justify infanticide based on this? What the hell?

You are not to be blamed for spouting the company line; it's all you know. You are to be blamed when you fail to investigate the obvious inconsistencies within said company line as you are made aware of the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you think what God ordered the Israelites to do to the Amelikite infants was just?
Absolutely.

[/b]Can you define the term “just”* so that, when applied to either some person, P, or some action, A, I know what that means? Or— for any P or any A, what are the criteria for deciding whether that P or A can be described as “just”?

* In the ethical sense, not as a synonym for “only” or the archaic form of “joust”. 🙂

[If such criteria are conditional, can you also broadly state the conditions? Whether or not such conditions apply in the case of the Amakelites, or in any case of infanticide, is another question—as is the issue of whether or not there is any agreements about such conditions vis-à-vis one’s understanding of the term, “just”, to which they are assigned. (See below).]

The same question could, of course, be leveled at Nemesio’s question to you—and hereby is. Perhaps in your affirmative response to him, you understood what he meant by the word—or perhaps you did not, nor even assume that you did, but were answering in terms of your own understanding of the word.

________________________________________

Here is the entry from Merriam-Webster OnLine. I think it shows some of the problems with defining a word in terms of other words that similarly need defining, but examples of such notions as being in proper proportion [1c] or morally upright [2a(1)] or merited [2a(2)] might lend some clarity.

Main Entry:

2just

Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French juste, from Latin justus, from jus right, law; akin to Sanskrit yos welfare
Date: 14th century

1 a: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : REASONABLE barchaic : faithful to an original c: conforming to a standard of correctness : PROPER 2 a (1): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS (2): being what is merited : DESERVED b: legally correct : LAWFUL

“Fair” is listed as a synonym—

6 a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism b (1): conforming with the established rules : ALLOWED (2): consonant with merit or importance : DUE c: open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule

_________________________________________

You, of course, may define the word—as you use it—differently. I “just” want to know how you are using it, what you mean by it, so that I can say, for any P or A, that it does or does not meet your definitional criteria.

Originally posted by vistesd
You, of course, may define the word—as you use it—differently. I “just” want to know how you are using it, what you mean by it, so that I can say, for any P or A, that it does or does not meet your definitional criteria.

At the risk of putting words in anyone's mouth, I'd think FKBH's use of the word "just", in this context, may mean something different than one might normally consider. Perhaps he will offer "God did it thusly, according to scripture...and God is Perfectly Just, again, according to scripture...and therefore anything undertaken by God is Just. Since we are mere men and cannot understand Perfect Justice, we are not in a position to question God's actions". Or something like that.

Is there a way out of that particular circle?