Favourite Genesis

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Service to others is a pillar of Christianity. Jesus taught that helping those in need was one of the most important aspects of life for just about anyone. Jesus went as far as to suggest that people should help others as much as possible. For example, Jesus praised those who would give so much to the poor that they themselves became poor. With such strong emphasis on ...[text shortened]... live up to Christ’s expectations.


https://ceasonline.org/the-state-of-altruism-in-christianity

Are you feeling unwell this morning?

@divegeester said
Are you feeling unwell this morning?

A rather odd question, but I'm doing okay thanks. Sleeping well.

Edit: You seem more delicate than usual. Trust you are eating well?

@petewxyz said
The question seems to be how does an omnipotent parent still be a parent? Of course they could just do it all for you themselves and never let you experience figuring it out for yourself, but would that be a successful father?

I think, personally, Christianity struggles in a number of areas due to attributing their God with some very unyielding qualities.

If God was, say, just omnipotent, then they could point at evil in the world and say God 'is' powerful enough to stop it, He just chooses not to. Similarly, if God was soley omnibenevolent they could point at evil in the world and say God wants to stop it but lacks the ability to do so. However, my imbuing God with both omnipotence and omnibenevolence we are suddenly presented with a God who can stop evil and wants to stop it, but fails to act. (We are then presented with the 'free will' argument which fails to explain how an innocent has used their freewill to contract a terminal disease or be the victim of an earthquake etc - Or worse still that this omnibenevolent deity has allowed such suffering as some kind of a test).

Now, when we also throw omniscience into the mix the Christian position really does become untenable.

@ghost-of-a-duke said

You seem more delicate than usual. Trust you are eating well?

Thanks for asking, interesting that you do as I am trying to discover the more altruistic elements of my personality but unfortunately with not must success.

With regard to diet, I am in a “favourite genesis” mindset and am considering this book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ALTRUISTIC-DIET-Adam-Started-Garden/dp/1977738737

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A rather odd question

It was an attempt at altruism, so yes as you say, it’s odd.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think, personally, Christianity struggles in a number of areas due to attributing their God with some very unyielding qualities.

If God was, say, just omnipotent, then they could point at evil in the world and say God 'is' powerful enough to stop it, He just chooses not to. Similarly, if God was soley omnibenevolent they could point at evil in the world and say G ...[text shortened]... ow, when we also throw omniscience into the mix the Christian position really does become untenable.

There you go!

You see that is a much better reply to your buddy. None of this accidental “craftily” nonsense barbs, which you meant to direct at me.

Well done.

@divegeester said
There you go!

You see that is a much better reply to your buddy. None of this accidental “craftily” nonsense barbs, which you meant to direct at me.

Well done.

Wiseman say, 'the first step toward altruism is accepting everything is not about you.'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Wiseman say, 'the first step toward altruism is accepting everything is not about you.'

Maybe the same guy who said be honest when you accidentally call your forum buddy “crafty”.

@divegeester said
Maybe the same guy who said be honest when you accidentally call your forum buddy “crafty”.

No. That post was intentionally intended for him. He would have taken me calling him crafty in the manner it was used.

I don't lie in these forums.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No. That post was intentionally intended for him. He would have taken me calling him crafty in the manner it was used.

“Intentionally intended” hmm.

I’m sure he would forgive you instantly. But it does appear that you made a mistake, especially given your subsequent reply to me saying “again” how I was confusing what you were accusing Petewxyz of being crafty about.

As you are keen to display your honesty; can you see what I’m taking about?

@ghost-of-a-duke said

I don't lie in these forums.

“We’re all innocent in here”

Shawshank Redemption

@suzianne said
When we were "created".

OK.
Let's assume some arbitrary date when we were created.
Therefore, according to you, there was a first "homo sapiens"

What was that beings mother and father?

@wolfgang59 said
OK.
Let's assume some arbitrary date when we were created.
Therefore, according to you, there was a first "homo sapiens"

What was that beings mother and father?

I have tried asking this question already and got accused of “harassment”, so be careful that you are not tarred with the same brush.

Well structured btw and improved from my version.

@divegeester said
“Intentionally intended” hmm.

I’m sure he would forgive you instantly. But it does appear that you made a mistake, especially given your subsequent reply to me saying “again” how I was confusing what you were accusing Petewxyz of being crafty about.

As you are keen to display your honesty; can you see what I’m taking about?

Not really. I know it is easy to reply to the wrong person but don't think I have ever done that during my time on this site. And that's the truth of it.

We were discussing omniscience and Pete responded with a musing on omnipotence. I said he had craftily moved from one to the other. Appears only you took that seriously and not the tongue in cheek way it was intended. Perhaps you needed an emoticon to differentiate?

So, unless you are accusing me of lying, accept that and move on.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So, unless you are accusing me of lying, accept that and move on.

If I was accusing you of lying, would that mean that this amazing discourse cannot “move on”?