Originally posted by vivify
You said on page 2 of this thread:
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]you cannot call yourself a christian and condone the genocides in the old testament, the rapes, the slavery, the injustice.
So *no true Christian* would condone the genocides God ordered in the bible? Or the times God said the Jews may take slaves from nat ...[text shortened]... actions are "perfect"?
Deny it all you want, but you just used a "no true Scottsman" fallacy.[/b]The difficulty with the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it is contingent on the statement. So a sentence like: "No true Scotsman was born in England, having had no Scottish ancestry, and never having lived there." is perfectly true, since they lack any of the defining features of Scottishness. Here it's less clear. A Christian is a follower of Christ's teachings as related in the New Testament. So if, as Zahlanzi seems to be claiming, the teachings of Christ contradict parts of the Old Testament then his argument is not fallacious on those grounds.
However, to justify his claim he has to find passages in the New Testament that override the relevant passages of the Old Testament. It is the case that some of the Old Testament does not apply to gentile Christians, so there is some quality in his claim. The difficult part of the task I'm setting him is to show that this goes beyond dietary laws.
I think the discussion might be more fruitful if that was the approach taken as throwing accusations of fallacy around tends to drive debates into a cul-de-sac.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJesus said he is "one" with God; the same god that brought all the evils in the OT which Zahlanzi claimed no true Christian would condone.
The difficulty with the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it is contingent on the statement. So a sentence like: "No true Scotsman was born in England, having had no Scottish ancestry, and never having lived there." is perfectly true, since they lack any of the defining features of Scottishness. Here it's less clear. A Christian is a follower of Christ ...[text shortened]... proach taken as throwing accusations of fallacy around tends to drive debates into a cul-de-sac.
Originally posted by vivifyI don't plan on not using the 'free will' argument for anything, and I still do
I made the OP very clear: that Christians need to stop using "free will" as an argument for anything God does or doesn't do (like saying God didn't stop some horrific event because he doesn't mess with free will). Clearly, Good had been shown to frequently mrs with people's free will.
not understand why you think that is a statement I need to worry about or
be concern with. God does not stop free will with us now, and because of
that we do as we will and our lust, fear, and other selfish ambitions will
cause us to do things had we followed caring for one another we wouldn't
do.
Two people can find a wallet on the ground with money and ID in it,
an honest one will face the same temptation as they dishonest one, but the
honest actions will not be the same. So clearly you want to show how bad
someone who lusts is, all it takes is something they want and they will
behave just as their nature leads them too, they will make the bad choice.
While a good one will if need be lay down their lives if push comes to shove.
Originally posted by vivifyWas that said by him or of him? In the Gospels he repeatedly refers to himself of the 'son of man'. I think this was a way of mocking the Romans as the Emperor styled himself Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus, the English equivalent would be roughly Tiberius Caesar, Son of the God Augustus, Emperor. It's not clear to me that the style Jesus used was intended to indicate more than contempt for the Roman Principes. I think there is an argument to be made which I'll do in the following post.
Jesus said he is "one" with God; the same god that brought all the evils in the OT which Zahlanzi claimed no true Christian would condone.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJesus’ words in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” The Jews’ reaction to this statement indicate they know he was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).
Was that said by him or of him? In the Gospels he repeatedly refers to himself of the 'son of man'. I think this was a way of mocking the Romans as the Emperor styled himself Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus, the English equivalent would be roughly Tiberius Caesar, Son of the God Augustus, Emperor. It's not clear to me that the styl ...[text shortened]... e Roman Principes. I think there is an argument to be made which I'll do in the following post.
Originally posted by KellyJayNot you specifically, but Christians a large. Many people use arguments like "the reason God doesn't stop war, famine, rape, torture, etc., is because God doesn't like to violate free will". This erroneous line of logic has been used a lot on this forum, and elsewhere.
I don't plan on not using the 'free will' argument for anything, and I still do
not understand why you think that is a statement I need to worry about or
be concern with.
Originally posted by vivifyWell both go on, there comes a time when God does stop it, but as a rule
Not you specifically, but Christians a large. Many people use arguments like "the reason God doesn't stop war, famine, rape, torture, etc., is because God doesn't like to violate free will". This erroneous line of logic has been used a lot on this forum, and elsewhere.
I believe we get to do as we will no matter how bad! The issue on if sin is
so bad God should never had allowed it, or why does God allow sin is a
different argument then do we have free will. We do seem to suggest that
*we meaning all of us, me included from time to time* because He can is
supposed to stop the wrong we do. I do believe what God is doing is setting
up the universe that He doesn't have to stop it, we will, in the mean time
we are free to do evil, we are free to act in love, we are free to do evil in
the name of love and so on.
The complaint is that there is evil in the world which God could alleviate, but does not. A response from Christian apologists is to argue that if God were to intervene it would compromise our free will. However, I think that before taking that route we need to establish that there is a moral case that God should intervene in the world. In other words we have to show that there is an argument from evil at all.
First we need to find a moral system that can realistically be applied to God. This is not the most straightforward thing. I'll look at three systems, virtue ethics, and two versions of utilitarianism. An obvious criticism of what I'm going to argue is that they are not exhaustive of ethical systems, but I think that my conclusions will apply whatever ethical system one cares to apply. Virtue ethics is the notion that good characteristics are what makes one ethical and that an agent who is virtuous will automatically behave ethically, because that's what they are like. Applying virtue ethics to God is particularly appealing. Utilitarianism is the notion that what is good is what maximises some utility function such as human welfare. The two variants I'll look at are a positive one where one must always act to improve human welfare, and one where it is sufficient to simply not act to reduce human welfare to be described as ethical, which I'll call neutral utilitarianism.
So, in the present some people are hungry, there is war, and there is suffering. Of the three ethical systems I'm using it is only under the positive version of utilitarianism that God is compelled to act to end war, feed the hungry and alleviate suffering. Under neutral utilitarianism all that is required is that he should not start wars, or cause hunger and suffering. Virtue ethics do not require an agent to do anything, they require the agent to be something. It requires the agent to have virtuous characteristics.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind. The Samaritan gives help to someone he has never met, not expecting thanks, with no hope of profit. He acted virtuously. The parable is an exhortation to obey the second commandment, to love thy neighbour. The question is why does it not apply to God? The commandment given in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that it is we who should act. It is our responsibility to act as good neighbours to one another and not God's.
Trolley problems help us discuss this. Consider a railway system with five people tied to the tracks by a stereotypical villain. On the main track four are tied up and a railway trolley is approaching them, on the siding one person is tied up. The agent can act to switch points so the trolley will be diverted to the siding and kill the one rather than the four. Under the positive utilitarianism, there is no choice, one must act to kill the one in order to save the four. The other two systems do not compel one to act. But the agent in the trolley scenario is not responsible for the situation. By acting they make themselves responsible for the death of an individual who would otherwise have lived. It is not at all clear that saving four people gives them adequate justification for killing one.
So it is not clear that we are right to insist that God necessarily should intervene. However, there is a difference with the Trolley scenario. In the trolley scenario the agent is not responsible for the situation, the villain is. If God created the universe and is omniscient, which theists normally accuse him of being, then he does have responsibility for the situation because of the way he created the universe and all three ethical systems come into play. Since he created humans with the capacity for disobedience casting them out of Eden for expressing their nature was to act to reduce human welfare.
The situation is more glaring with virtue ethics, how can an entity with perfect virtue create a world which contains evil? The only possible answer I can think of is that the creation phase is not yet over. What we are experiencing is the pain of being born. If God requires company that both has free will and is virtuous then this is the only way. By making us responsible for our own welfare in difficult circumstances we are presented with difficult moral decisions which test our morality. The parable of the sower comes to mind.
So, certainly from the point of view of intervention, I don't think the argument from evil works. There is no strong ethical case that any agent of necessity should be required to intervene in order to be described as ethical, so I don't think there is a case to answer. From the point of view of creation there is a stronger case for an argument from evil. However, I do not think the argument is unanswerable.
But regarding intervention, we can't be certain that God doesn't intervene. I heard the Rabbi Lionel Blue, probably on Thought for the Day on British Radio, make the following joke years and years ago:
A rabbi was walking along a cliff edge and tripped and fell over the edge. A tree growing from the cliff-side broke his fall. So faced with certain death by drowning and an impossible climb he prayed to his God to be saved. After a while mountain rescue came with ropes and offered him help. He refused saying: "I have faith, my God will save me.". So they went away and a little while later a helicopter appeared, they offered help and again he refused: "I have faith, my God will save me.". Later still a lifeboat came along and they told him to drop and they'd fish him out. "I have faith, my God will save me.". After they'd gone the tree gave way and he fell and drowned. So he got to heaven and was let in, having been a good man. He said to God: "Lord, I'm your servant in all things, and ask only for understanding, why did you not answer my prayer and save me?", and God said: "I'm sorry, I don't understand it, I sent mountain rescue, a helicopter, a lifeboat, you'd have thought it'd be enough!"
Originally posted by vivifyYeah, but the Gospel of John is non-historical, it's purpose is to define a theology, not accurately portray history. If he said that in one of the other Gospels I'd take it more seriously.
Jesus’ words in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” The Jews’ reaction to this statement indicate they know he was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI acknowledge that God can and does alleviate it, and He allows it go
The complaint is that there is evil in the world which God could alleviate, but does not. A response from Christian apologists is to argue that if God were to intervene it would compromise our free will. However, I think that before taking that route we need to establish that there is a moral case that God should intervene in the world. In other words ...[text shortened]... rstand it, I sent mountain rescue, a helicopter, a lifeboat, you'd have thought it'd be enough!"
forward too. We are the ones doing the evil, and to attempt to say it is
God's fault that we are doing evil things is laughable and sad.
Originally posted by KellyJayAs you say,your god does intervene from time to time, isn't that a subtle way of controlling or at least influencing free will?
I acknowledge that God can and does alleviate it, and He allows it go
forward too. We are the ones doing the evil, and to attempt to say it is
God's fault that we are doing evil things is laughable and sad.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI believe there may be good reasons for the genocides in the old testament. 😏
"most"
most what? just as an example, catholicism stance is that evolution is real and that the earth is old.
ask christians from other countries than the US if they think the bible should be taken literally.
it matters quite a lot. you cannot call yourself a christian and condone the genocides in the old testament, the rapes, the slavery, the injustice.
Originally posted by RJHindsR.J., it's a little difficult to know where to start with that statement. If your God is virtuous then the genocides cannot have been sanctioned by him. If the genocides were not sanctioned by him then the histories in the Bible are just that, histories. Further it means that what you are reading as divine judgement is in fact human propaganda. So in that case your understanding of the Bible is flawed. The alternative is worse. If God did order a genocide then by all modern standards your God is evil. Which would mean we are all in trouble. Since the second case is essentially unthinkable, and I realise this is an argument to bad consequences, either God does not exist or the Bible is not solely the word of God. So, I put it to you that your reading of the Bible is flawed.
I believe there may be good reasons for the genocides in the old testament. 😏
Originally posted by OdBodInfluencing free will is no different than showing an ad on TV, come buy my
As you say,your god does intervene from time to time, isn't that a subtle way of controlling or at least influencing free will?
product you will enjoy the good life!
Taking free will away is having an angel sitting by your kitchen table
and every time you are about to over eat holds your hand away from your
food that you want, or turn you into a robot making you do what your
programmed into.
So free will, if it is free will, comes with restraint upon God, He cannot very
well judge us for our actions if they are not, our actions.