14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHinds
There you go trying to put God in a box again. Suzianne constantly says you can not put God in a box. I know this because she is always accusing me of doing it when I refer to God as a Trinity.
There you go trying to put God in a box again.
How so, exactly? Like...what do you mean?
14 Nov 14
For the sake of the argument, remove "moral" and replace with "blue."
If God is blue, we define as blue anything which approximates an alignment with God.
If something is not blue, we do not see an affinity with God.
But we wouldn't expect God to be red and remain God; He would cease being God and become something other.
Our free will is restricted: we can only affect so much.
Hard as I try, I cannot add to my height, survive without oxygen, travel unassisted through space.
God's free will (although different in many ways to man's) is restricted only by His character.
That might seem robotic to some, and to a degree, it is...
Except He was neither programmed or created, so that eliminates any notion of dependency.
He just is.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut is free will is restricted, and restricted specifically in the area where Suzianne claims freedom is essential.
God's free will (although different in many ways to man's) is restricted only by His character.
That might seem robotic to some, and to a degree, it is...
Except He was neither programmed or created, so that eliminates any notion of dependency.
He just is.
If man was also restricted by his character, and God gave man such character so as to ensure man did not sin, would that be a problem?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you simply stipulate that God is definitive of morality, then yes it follows that God cannot be immoral. In that case, He cannot fail to be moral, anymore than a defining rod can fail to be the unit of length that it defines. This makes morality arbitrary, pace the Euthyphro dilemma; but that is not my main concern here. It makes God a moral entity but just in virtue of stipulation. He would not possess moral freedom in the sense Suzianne requires in humans; in a sense that requires having live options of doing moral right AND moral wrong. What you outline may or may not be what Suzianne endorses, but the end result is, I think, consistent with her view in this regard.
For the sake of the argument, remove "moral" and replace with "blue."
If God is blue, we define as blue anything which approximates an alignment with God.
If something is not blue, we do not see an affinity with God.
But we wouldn't expect God to be red and remain God; He would cease being God and become something other.
Our free will is restricted: ...[text shortened]... He was neither programmed or created, so that eliminates any notion of dependency.
He just is.
Now, here's the actual issue, which you conveniently stopped short of addressing. How is it that moral freedom is such a critical good for us if our supposed moral exemplar and the very embodiment of all that is good does not even exemplify it? Also, how can it be that moral freedom is a precondition for love if God, the supposed embodiment of things like love, does not possess it?
14 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBy the way, Freaky, your own argument here if anything only supplies fuel against Suzianne's position. Let's drop in 'good' this time. So we "define as good anything which approximates an alignment with God". Well, as we have already seen, God does not possess moral freedom in the sense that Suzianne requires in humans. So possessing human moral freedom, in the sense that Suzianne requires, does not "approximate an alignment with God". So, how exactly is our possession of it such a critical good? This is where we need some clarification.
For the sake of the argument, remove "moral" and replace with "blue."
If God is blue, we define as blue anything which approximates an alignment with God.
If something is not blue, we do not see an affinity with God.
But we wouldn't expect God to be red and remain God; He would cease being God and become something other.
Our free will is restricted: ...[text shortened]... He was neither programmed or created, so that eliminates any notion of dependency.
He just is.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloI will just leave that to Suzianne to explain, if someone can get her to return to this thread after she has been attacked for believing whatever she believes. I am no longer sure I even know her beliefs since I don't have mind reading capabilities.There you go trying to put God in a box again.
How so, exactly? Like...what do you mean?
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI only accuse you of keeping your God in a box when you claim that He could only have made the Universe in 6 24-hour days. It is your imagination that is limited and not God, but you insist on limiting God.
There you go trying to put God in a box again. Suzianne constantly says you can not put God in a box. I know this because she is always accusing me of doing it when I refer to God as a Trinity.
Trinity has got nothing to do with it.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloMan and God cannot be held to the same standard. God is not flawed as Man is.
If you simply stipulate that God is definitive of morality, then yes it follows that God cannot be immoral. In that case, He cannot fail to be moral, anymore than a defining rod can fail to be the unit of length that it defines. This makes morality arbitrary, pace the Euthyphro dilemma; but that is not my main concern here. It makes God a moral entity ...[text shortened]... precondition for love if God, the supposed embodiment of things like love, does not possess it?
You cannot accept this simple statement and therefore you fail in imagining that your arguments have validity. Accept the truth of this and your arguments crumble like dry leaves.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloDon't listen to RJH, he's like the "Forrest Gump" of Christians. His heart may be pure, but there's no real connection between heart and head.There you go trying to put God in a box again.
How so, exactly? Like...what do you mean?
Ron, what you fail to realize is that LJ doesn't believe in God. His arguments hold no reason, they are merely an amusement to him. He doesn't "feel" the truth, and so doesn't feel bound to it at all. This is what happens when mental masturbation is your preferred hobby. Truth doesn't even enter into it. But just remember this: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
14 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianne
Man and God cannot be held to the same standard. God is not flawed as Man is.
You cannot accept this simple statement and therefore you fail in imagining that your arguments have validity. Accept the truth of this and your arguments crumble like dry leaves.
Man and God cannot be held to the same standard. God is not flawed as Man is.
Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. You keep stating that God and man cannot be compared. But to state that man is flawed and God is not flawed in the same respect is nothing more or less than a comparative statement.
Perhaps the problem here is on your end?
I'm still waiting for some substantive clarification from you....
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsTell that to sonhouse. It was he who brought Pereboom into the discussion. In my honest opinion, within the rules societies set for us all, Suzianne has beliefs well inside the criteria. You on the other hand are a dangerous potential insurgent.
This thread is concerned with understanding what Suzianne believes in some coherent manner. It is not interested in the beliefs of Derk Pereboom or anyone else but Suzianne. Do you have any insight into an understanding of her beliefs about God and moral freedom?
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHe is Dangerous.
Tell that to sonhouse. It was he who brought Pereboom into the discussion. In my honest opinion, within the rules societies set for us all, Suzianne has beliefs well inside the criteria. You on the other hand are a dangerous potential insurgent.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by DeepThought"This thread is concerned with understanding what Suzianne believes in some coherent manner."
Tell that to sonhouse. It was he who brought Pereboom into the discussion. In my honest opinion, within the rules societies set for us all, Suzianne has beliefs well inside the criteria. You on the other hand are a dangerous potential insurgent.
Cohering with what? Your beliefs?
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
17 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI meant sonship, not sonhouse. Who is dangerous Pereboom? Sorry I simply won't watch random videos on YouTube, if you want to write a sentence or two explaining why I'm happy to read it but I spend too much time on these forums as it is, watching videos will just increase the amount of time I'm using up.
He is Dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBzuNIQ6-sM