22 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI wanted to make a separate post to address your final two paragraphs in more detail. This will have a little ‘free form’ approach to it:
[b]Your critique of my debating style is rubbish.
Rubbish it may be, but truth it is, as well.
I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops.
The "preparatory hoops" are critical to the conclusion, so I'll thank you to allow me to m ...[text shortened]... d preserved a remnant of believers through whom the promise would continue.[/b]
You say the human race had become terribly defiled in Noah’s day. Were they more, or less, defiled than the human race at the present time? Did the flood reduce our sinfulness at all? Among the entire population of the earth, god could find only 8 people worthy of saving? All the others, men, women, and children, had to be drowned? Were they so sinful that even Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient to save them? If sin was inherited from Adam and Eve then isn’t it distributed in equal parts through everyone? Did it not continue in equal strength after the flood as before it? Could more great floods reduce the level of sin even further? If sin cannot be eradicated or lessened through the use of planned flooding then does Hydrogenics* serve any good purpose?
*My term for the attempted improvement of the human disposition through the use of planned, catastrophic flooding.
22 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhere to start...where to start? Let's just fire up the chainsaw and get to work, shall we?
Where to start...where to start? Let's just fire up the chainsaw and get to work, shall we?
You don't need a god to have a moral standard. You can have moral standards without making them absolute. In otherwords, certain things may change as we gain more understanding on a particular matter or gain a more enlightened outlook. But some things, like murder supposedly 'loving' god has commited genocide with gusto on more than one occasion?
I'm afraid this is a crying example of something I have mourned before. Please let us be civil. If this cannot be managed, I suppose I should not bother interacting with you, sir. I don't want this to happen, believe me. I don't think there's anything wrong with your intellectual capacity, but snubs and jibes accomplish nothing but hurt feelings.
You don't need a god to have a moral standard.
Correct. But can you make it stick? Any moral pronuncement without an absolute to back it up has no ultimate weight. It is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive. There is nothing more and no reason why anyone, ultimately, should conform to any rules other than their own. Society may attempt to curb what it labels "deviancy," but the "deviant" has every right to claim that society is impinging on his freedom. Relativism allows this.
But some things, like murder, are frowned upon by every culture.
Unjustified by history or by philosophy. Many murders have been done for seemingly noble causes. One man's murder is another man's liberation. See World War 1 and the French Revolution.
Our moral code has changed along with it. If it didn't then christians would still be defending slavery to this day.
It is also true that modern slavery (and slavery in the Civil War era) is different than slavery in the ancient world, i.e. a practice based on race rather than social status. Also many people sold themselves willingly as slaves in the ancient world and were often treated as trusted members of the household rather than as cattle. Take Joseph for instance. Keep in mind that the Bible's priority is creating redeemed people, not just societies. After all, you cannot create a just society until you have just people (I am not saying this is not your goal as well, but we are speaking of alleged systemic contradictions in the Christian faith, not contradictions with competing faiths).
..but am instead trying to point out logical contradictions within christianity.
See FreakyKBH's post above. It's a good answer. To destroy a race because of color or politics is wrong, but what if a group is a terrible, destructive and corrupting influence that will never come right? What would you say to the victims of such a group? Is it not right to do Justice?
Potential life is not life. Abortion and divine genocide are not the same thing.
Regardless of what one defines as "life," is it right for a human, who does not know the future, to perform an action, solely for the sake of fleeting personal convenience, that will rob the world of a thinking reasoning human being?
Some things are always wrong, even under a relativist moral standard.
I must admit that I am mystified by this position. If life is utterly absurd, why care? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Why is it wrong to kill? Because people do not like being killed and will take steps to stop it from happening.
As Sartre would say, murder is using freedom to take away freedom. But, unfortunately, relativism does not value one person's freedom over another. A person may not like being killed, but that is personal preference. Some commit suicide. Either way, I fail to see how anything can be "absolutely" true under a morally relative system.
As long as people would rather be alive than dead then murder will be considered wrong.
This I can agree with, as long as the key word is "considered." However, if people fail to care about living, then under relativism, it is no longer "wrong." Changing standards, no absolutes.
Life may be absurd, but in the end that's all there is. So it must be cherished and fostered while you're here.
Materialism remains unproven, becuase it denies what it cannot prove is false. At any rate, one can cherish life without espousing a transendent first cause, at least until the universe collapses and ends it all. Again, I am mystified why this knowledge of utter hopelessness does not haunt every relativist like a hound.
I think Nietzche would say something like, "The next time you look upon a mountain or a great monument or a work of art, while you are appreciating it with the aesthetic standards of your own mind, entertain for a moment the idea that one day all of these things will pass away and be remembered by no one. All of mankind's hopes, loves, and aspirations will end in utter drear and darkness. All beauty is transitory, all life is worthless, and all loves are vain. Let madness break out and violence unparalleled. Anything less is a painted lie."
Meanwhile, Blaise Pascal says, "Should a man be in error in supposing the Christian religion to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake. But how irreparable is his loss, and how inescapable is his danger should he err in supposing it to be false.”
Regards,
R
22 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarThere is no 'ultimate' weight to back up any non-theistic moral standard. There are only "utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive" reasons. Reasons which may change gradually over time. But these are sufficient. There is no 'ultimate' reason why anyone would conform to any rules. But there are may lesser reasons why they do so. Generally we obey it because it is in our best interests to do so. The lack of any ultimate source or ultimate reason does not invalidate such a moral code. People trying to change a society's moral code may succeed over time. A brief examination of human society clearly shows that they have indeed succeeded in doing so. You wrongly mistake this as a weakness in a moral code. I would counter that it is its strength. Such a code is perfectable. It is open to change when a new or better understanding of something comes to light. Such a code evolves along with its adherants' social and physical charecteristics to keep it from becoming hidebound and ossified.
[b]Where to start...where to start? Let's just fire up the chainsaw and get to work, shall we?
I'm afraid this is a crying example of something I have mourned before. Please let us be civil. If this cannot be managed, I suppose I should not bother interacting with you, sir. I don't want this to happen, believe me. I don't think there's anything wrong ...[text shortened]... danger should he err in supposing it to be false.”
Regards,
R[/b]
Murder is wrong in every culture, without exception. What has changed over time is our definition of 'murder.' All societies make allowances for unavoidable or supposedly justified deaths, such as war, capital punishment, self defense, etc., but never for murder. Many times past justifications are seen to be specious and we redefine and tighten our definition of murder, but murder itself is always wrong, everywhere.
Your argument that biblical slavery is a kinder, gentler form of slavery is completely irrelevant. By today's standards, slavery of ANY kind is seen as being immoral. The institution of slavery is immoral whether the slaves are treated kindly or whether they are whipped, it makes no difference. So if they started keeping slaves again in Israel, or Palestine, we would rightly be outraged. Why? Because times have changed. And our moral code has kept step with the changing times. This is its strength. If we cannot create a just society, as you claim, then why have any moral codes at all? Perhaps we can't create a truly just society. But that shoudln't stop us from trying to create a more just society.
Your question about the justification of destroying supposedly irredeemable groups is completely without basis. Opening the door to the admissibility of genocide is nothing but nothing but the widest possible application of moral relativism. If genocide is to be allowed, then what could possibly be forbidden? Besides, who were the victims of the people drowned in in the great flood? The very people who were drowned? Criminal and victim, sinner and the innocent, all drowned equally. Where is your justice there?
Humans are justified in doing many things without knowing their outcome. Lacking omniscience, we have to balance the rights of the actual mother against those of the potential future human. One clearly takes precedance over the other. Besides, who is to say that the fetus would eventually turn into a thinking, reasoning human being? They could very well have turned into a non-reasoning christian who argues the most convoluted apologetics imagineable. It seems a wash.
Even if llfe is taken to be utterly absurd, nihilism does not necessarily follow. Your life is finite, so you make the most of it while you can. When your dead you won't be around to worry about it anymore. Read Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus sometime. I'm not going to take the time to expound on this topic at large, but it is possible to live a meaningful fulfilling life, even though it may be finite.
Nothing is 'absolutely true' under a relativist moral system. Every article of a moral code is a social convention. The more damaging something is to a society, the more it will be punished. You don't need any gods for that.
As for Pascal's Wager, that is easily demolished by anyone these days, but would require another post altogether.
22 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettGreetings, sir.
There is no 'ultimate' weight to back up any non-theistic moral standard. There are only "utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive" reasons. Reasons which may change gradually over time. But these are sufficient. There is no 'ultimate' reason why anyone would conform to any rules. But there are may lesser reasons why they do so. Generally we obey it b demolished by anyone these days, but would require another post altogether.
To take your points as best as I can:
There is no 'ultimate' weight to back up any non-theistic moral standard. There are only "utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive" reasons. Reasons which may change gradually over time. But these are sufficient.
I would have to ask "sufficient for whom?" I'm afraid I know some people and some cultures who would disagree with that. If by that you mean, “sufficient for you,” that is more sustainable. However, you have only your likings and dislikings to hold you up. Does materialism sustain you in hard times? In his parable “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” Nietzche tried to comfort the dying man with these words: "On mine honour, my friend," answered Zarathustra, "there is nothing
of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!" Does this comfort you? If it does, then the subject has moved to the will and all that can be said is that the decision to accept or reject Christ is not an intellectual decision, but a moral one.
To the grieving person who has lost a loved one, atheism can only say, “Your loved one has ceased to exist utterly. You will never see them again, except in your memories. And when the universe has gone, even the memories will be destroyed.” By contrast, a transcendent view can say, “You have the hope of meeting them again. They have not ceased to be, they have merely moved on.” Romanticism? Maybe so, but I am a romantic. I admit it. However, I fail to find materialism comforting in the least.
The lack of any ultimate source or ultimate reason does not invalidate such a moral code.
I'm not sure what you mean by "invalidate," but I don't think it matters much. If you mean the strict definition of "removing from something the power to constrain," then this would be true if one could force people to do it. But there might very well be those who resist. For example, military might, propoganda, and the death camps were an effective way of enforcing Nazism, but many still fought against it even in the heart of Germany. As another example, many buddhist monks went so far as to immolate themselves in protest against the government during the Vietnam era. However, if you mean "removing something's power to convince," I'm afraid that it must be that way. Many remain unconvinced of relativism's veracity.
This could easily be levied against any belief system, including Christianity. However, Christianity has one great advantage. By giving people ultimate hope, it gives them the ultimate incentive.
People trying to change a society's moral code may succeed over time. A brief examination of human society clearly shows that they have indeed succeeded in doing so.
In the short term, yes. But in the long term, I would have to disagree. Civilizations come and go. History repeats. Carthage, Troy, and Ancient Rome are dust and ruins; and who is to say today’s civilization will not suffer the same fate?
You wrongly mistake this as a weakness in a moral code. I would counter that it is its strength. Such a code is perfectable. It is open to change when a new or better understanding of something comes to light. Such a code evolves along with its adherants' social and physical charecteristics to keep it from becoming hidebound and ossified.
Revolutions and reforms are also cyclical. Peace alternates with war. Enlightened self-interest remains self-interest.
Murder is wrong in every culture, without exception. What has changed over time is our definition of 'murder.' All societies make allowances for unavoidable or supposedly justified deaths, such as war, capital punishment, self defense, etc., but never for murder.
This is precisely my point. When the definition of something is always subject to change, reality itself can no longer be understood. As long as people hold to different definitions, nothing can be accomplished. What is murder for one may not be murder for another.
Many times past justifications are seen to be specious and we redefine and tighten our definition of murder, but murder itself is always wrong, everywhere.
What of those who feel that someone is in their way and wish to dispose of them? They would believe murder can be justified. They may be dead wrong, but that is what they believe. Timothy Mcvay felt he was justified and remained convinced of his position to the end. Society condemned him, but that didn’t stop him from believing it.
Your argument that biblical slavery is a kinder, gentler form of slavery is completely irrelevant. By today's standards, slavery of ANY kind is seen as being immoral.
The key phrase is “today’s standards.” You have already admitted that standards change. If society decides once again that slavery is proper it will then become “right” again. Relativism does not value one culture over another, so the idea of one culture being more “enlightened” than another is also relative.
The institution of slavery is immoral whether the slaves are treated kindly or whether they are whipped, it makes no difference. So if they started keeping slaves again in Israel, or Palestine, we would rightly be outraged. Why? Because times have changed. And our moral code has kept step with the changing times.
Again, what is this moral code based on that is binding? I am against slavery because God’s word tells me that I must be kind to my neighbor, but why can a materialist be against slavery except to say that he doesn’t like it? Masters and Johnson would say, “What’s selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good.” Salvation by survey.
If we cannot create a just society, as you claim, then why have any moral codes at all?
Nietzche would agree with you.
Perhaps we can't create a truly just society. But that shoudln't stop us from trying to create a more just society.
I agree; but the tragedy is that such efforts, if not based on anything substantive, are ultimately cold and empty.
Your question about the justification of destroying supposedly irredeemable groups is completely without basis. Opening the door to the admissibility of genocide is nothing but nothing but the widest possible application of moral relativism.
If genocide is to be allowed, then what could possibly be forbidden? Besides, who were the victims of the people drowned in in the great flood? The very people who were drowned? Criminal and victim, sinner and the innocent, all drowned equally. Where is your justice there?
I think you are raising a very sobering issue here and such things should never be approached without an alert mind coupled with a softened heart. However, since this entire thread is dealing with Christianity systemically and not attempting to find contradictions with other beliefs, we must make certain assumptions, most notably God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, the reality of absolute evil, and the belief in life beyond the grave. We may not all believe in those items, but unless you accept them as axioms, we cannot debate the alleged biblical contradiction. So, with these in mind, allow me to lapse into story for a moment (I do not mean this to be insulting, merely as a second-level philosophical illustration. Besides, I love story writing. Please bear with me).
Once there was a great king who loved and was loved by his people. He made just laws and gave of himself and his possessions freely, not denying any good thing. He was even granted great wisdom and foresight, knowing the future and the minds of all men, and all praised him for his wisdom and justice. But one day, there arose a people who hated this king and his kingdom. They burned, pillaged, terrorized, and befouled the people and their land. The people cried out for their king to save them.
As the king looked on these evildoers, he loved them as well, for He loved all peoples. He pled with them, sent messengers and letters to them asking for peace, and even came to them himself along with his grand army to protect his people from them. But the members of this terrible tribe only swore undying hatred for the king and his land and redoubled their efforts to pollute and savage everything in sight.
Looking into their hearts, the king new they would never change their ways, so, with tears in his eyes, he designed and built a prison from which no one could escape and had it built in a place that no one would find unless He wished it. He ordered his armies to subdue the evil ones and place them into the prison. And to this day, the land has been free of the evil.
I leave it to you to divine the meaning. Remember that, since this thread is discussing a contradiction, it assumed the bible speaks the truth in other areas. If one is a skeptic, to deny these truths is to render the objection invalid.
Humans are justified in doing many things without knowing their outcome. Lacking omniscience, we have to balance the rights of the actual mother against those of the potential future human. One clearly takes precedance over the other.
If the issue is purely one of the mother’s convenience and personal preference, can we really afford to take the chance that we can even know what’s best? Isn’t it safer to hedge our bets instead?
Besides, who is to say that the fetus would eventually turn into a thinking, reasoning human being?
Even Downs people can reason in their way. One does not have to be particularly intelligent to reason and think. My mother works with such people, and many of them have taught her some marvelous things while talking and interacting with her. To be honest, I rather enjoy their company.
Part 2
They could very well have turned into a non-reasoning christian who argues the most convoluted apologetics imagineable. It seems a wash.
*Sigh* I was with you up to this point. I grow tired of the insults, sir. It is your prerogative to continue with them, of course, but it is also my prerogative to ignore them. I am afraid that this will be my last post in response to you. Such verbal poison I will no longer imbibe. I am truly sorry you feel the need to indulge in this. It’s so unnecessary. You can have a conversation without hurt feelings. I am truly sorry I must end it with this post, but if you cannot be civil, we have nothing more to discuss. I will finish this post, but until you can show some maturity and respect, I will say no more.
Even if llfe is taken to be utterly absurd, nihilism does not necessarily follow. Your life is finite, so you make the most of it while you can. When your dead you won't be around to worry about it anymore.
As I have said before, you need not be a nihilist to be a relativist. Some of my family’s closest friends are non-theists (or at least non-Christians). I am on good terms with several Hindus and an agnostic, and my best friend in college was gay. One can be a “good person” using one of many systems, but the point is that nothing solid holds it up, only one person’s or group’s preferences against another’s. When you die that is the end. And the only way this can be justified is the belief as stated satirically in the poem “Creed:” “We believe that after death comes the nothing, because when you ask the dead what happens, they say nothing.”
Nothing is 'absolutely true' under a relativist moral system. Every article of a moral code is a social convention. The more damaging something is to a society, the more it will be punished. You don't need any gods for that.
No problems with that statement. Spot on.
As for Pascal's Wager, that is easily demolished by anyone these days, but would require another post altogether.
Pascal’s argument is purely existential and not meant to be a proof of Christian doctrine. He merely states that, even if the Christian has believed an untruth, at least he has found the meaning which he has longed for. If he is wrong, he loses nothing. However, an atheist, if wrong, has lost everything.
Once again, I am sorry it must end here. I am truly saddened by the behavior I see. Many have tried to be courteous and I applaud those, but I think the time has come to draw a line in the sand as it were.
Not that I am more “righteous” than anyone else. Anyone who has ever met me in person knows that I am the first to include myself in the list of hypocrites, liars, abusers, and doers of wicked deeds. I am ashamed of those things that I have done. I pay the consequences for such actions, knowing that I am guilty. So this is not meant to show everyone how “good” I am. I am not good, just redeemed. But I do take a stand against such abuse as I have found from you, sir. My hope is that you will take the time to consider how your words bite and sting. Whether one is right or wrong, if one delivers him or herself poorly before others, that does not help his cause.
With all best wishes and hopes for friendship,
Ristar
22 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettSo this is the unveiling of your grand conclusion?
So this is the unveiling of your grand conclusion? You must be joking. You wasted all that time and bandwidth for this? Do you seriously expect anyone to weigh the amputation of one arm as being equal with genocide? What a ludicrous proposition. The hiker cut off his own arm to save his own life. He didn’t didn’t kill anyone to reach his goal. Nor did he dr ...[text shortened]... y it as an acceptable means. It can certainly never be contorted as being a morally perfect act.
Actually, this is still groundwork. The grand conclusion is a bit off in the horizon as of yet.
Do you seriously expect anyone to weigh the amputation of one arm as being equal with genocide?
Maybe you're right: how about two arms, a leg, and half of a foot? Obviously you agree that life is the overwhelming right choice to be make. Cut off whatever is threatening that life. Whether increased in severity or slackened, the principle remains the same.
Because one may not be able to get one's mind around utter incorrigibility, such a situation as is posed by Noah's situation may be found offensive. One's limitations, however, do not change reality.
Nor did he drown an entire planet.
Neither did God.
As I pointed out repeatedly (an issue you have just as repeatedly sidestepped), the hiker was severely limited in his range of choices. He was constrained by external circumstances. A supposedly omnipotent god can have no such constraints.
As with the hiker, God has constraints owing to His character. You have mistaken all-powerful with some form of absurdity. The attributes of God have been spelled out extensively in a thread with the same title, and you are referred to the same for a better explanation of omnipotence than what you currently hold.
The hiker in question has something precious caught between two immovable rocks. 'Precious' because his blood flows in and out of it, and he uses it to express his will. 'Precious,' but not vital. 'Vital' is the word used to describe that which must be protected at all costs.
In Noah's day, there was also something precious caught between two immovable objects. 'Precious' describes the physical lives of those who were on the earth. 'Precious' because time is short and their time was being taken from them because they refused to heed the hundreds of years of warnings.
The immovable objects were God's promise and their collective wills. God cannot fail to keep His promises, nor will He 'wiggle His nose,' so to speak, and change the will of another 'god.' His promise was to provide salvation for all mankind. His character is such that He will not fail to honor the choices of another free will being.
Hitler saved the master race by getting rid of those whose actions/decisions were effectively destroying the master race.
Hitler certainly tried, now didn't he? But, as we all know (Mel Gibson's father notwithstanding), Hitler was stopped.
22 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettYou say the human race had become terribly defiled in Noah’s day. Were they more, or less, defiled than the human race at the present time?
I wanted to make a separate post to address your final two paragraphs in more detail. This will have a little ‘free form’ approach to it:
You say the human race had become terribly defiled in Noah’s day. Were they more, or less, defiled than the human race at the present time? Did the flood reduce our sinfulness at all? Among the entire population of the ...[text shortened]... ttempted improvement of the human disposition through the use of planned, catastrophic flooding.
More, but we seem to be making an end-run at their record. The Bible speaks eschatologically of a time coming when man will actually exceed the sinfulness of Noah's day. Hard to believe, since the folks in Noah's day had the advantage of intermarriage with fallen angels. But we're going to pull it off, somehow.
Did the flood reduce our sinfulness at all? Among the entire population of the earth, god could find only 8 people worthy of saving?
There were only eight undefiled believers left on the planet.
Were they so sinful that even Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient to save them?
No. No one goes to hell for their sin. Sin has been washed away. Those who go to hell, go for their rejection of God.
If sin cannot be eradicated or lessened through the use of planned flooding then does Hydrogenics* serve any good purpose?
The purpose of the Flood was not to diminish sin. It was to perpetuate the human race in order for God's promise to be fulfilled, and thus save those who would heed His voice.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou may laugh, cry, or cry until you laugh, or laugh until you cry. I stand by the Bible. Try to keep in mind that some of the scientific developments we are beginning to understand were basic to 'ancient' man. They were able to do things at which we still marvel, of which we still don't understand.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of a man in the 21st Century typing into his computer the idea that Man used to intermarry with fallen angels.
I guess I'll go for the shake my head in pity and amusement reaction.
That being said, the age that a man finds himself in has no impact on what has occured in the past. Whether we are one generation or a thousand generations removed from an event by no means lessens the reality of historical events.
23 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMan intermarrying with mythical creatures is neither a "scientific development" nor a "historical event". It's a fairy tale and not a very original one.
You may laugh, cry, or cry until you laugh, or laugh until you cry. I stand by the Bible. Try to keep in mind that some of the scientific developments we are beginning to understand were basic to 'ancient' man. They were able to do things at which we still marvel, of which we still don't understand.
That being said, the age that a man finds himself i ...[text shortened]... usand generations removed from an event by no means lessens the reality of historical events.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan you give some examples?
You may laugh, cry, or cry until you laugh, or laugh until you cry. I stand by the Bible. Try to keep in mind that some of the scientific developments we are beginning to understand were basic to 'ancient' man. They were able to do things at which we still marvel, of which we still don't understand.
That being said, the age that a man finds himself i ...[text shortened]... usand generations removed from an event by no means lessens the reality of historical events.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarThen our discussion is at an end. I refuse to be bound by your conditions. If I feel like hurling an occasional barb in your direction, then I will do so as it suits me. I will not tailor my approach to suit your overly refined sensibilities. This is the internet, after all. If you're going to take offense so easily then I'm afraid you'll soon have no one left to argue with at all. Good day to you, Ristar.
*Sigh* I was with you up to this point. I grow tired of the insults, sir. It is your prerogative to continue with them, of course, but it is also my prerogative to ignore them. I am afraid that this will be my last post in response to you. Such verbal poison I will no longer imbibe. I am truly sorry you feel the need to indulge in this. It’s so unnecess ...[text shortened]... I will finish this post, but until you can show some maturity and respect, I will say no more.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957Here's the mention in Genesis 6:1-4
Can you give some examples?
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown."
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis has grown rather tiresome. Epecially since you claim to still be 'laying the groundwork.' So let's simplify things, shall we? The following is my answer to this post and every other post you may make in this thread. If you make another post I will copy and paste the answer below in response to it. Or we could just save ourselves the trouble and imagine that I've done so. Ready? Here we go:
[b]So this is the unveiling of your grand conclusion?
Actually, this is still groundwork. The grand conclusion is a bit off in the horizon as of yet.
Do you seriously expect anyone to weigh the amputation of one arm as being equal with genocide?
Maybe you're right: how about two arms, a leg, and half of a foot? Obviously you agree that [ ...[text shortened]... as we all know (Mel Gibson's father notwithstanding), Hitler was stopped.[/b]
1. An act as heinous as genocide is wholly incompatible with a morally perfect and all-loving god.
2. An omnipotent god cannot possibly be constrained into having to choose genocide as his instrument for social reform. Even if we accept that god has certain constraints on his character, no definition of omnipotence could mean having only one possible choice. Even if the means at his disposal are not unlimited, they must necessarily include more options than genocide. If not, then god is simply not omnipotent.
3. An omnipotent god could save mankind without resorting to genocide. A morally perfect and all-loving god would necessarily do so. The fact that the bible says god did use genocide (and on more than one occasion) we must conclude that god is either not omnipotent or not morally perfect and all-loving. Which it is makes no difference to me. I'll leave it up to you to choose which characteristic to discard.
24 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettOh, goody. Now we know where you stand on the issue. Further, we know that your view is inconsistent within itself, and regardless of that reality, you will simply stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath.
This has grown rather tiresome. Epecially since you claim to still be 'laying the groundwork.' So let's simplify things, shall we? The following is my answer to this post and every other post you may make in this thread. If you make another post I will copy and paste the answer below in response to it. Or we could just save ourselves the trouble and imagine ...[text shortened]... kes no difference to me. I'll leave it up to you to choose which characteristic to discard.
Nice talking with you.