23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidYou're contradicting yourself. Earlier, humans were nothing more than toy boats, able to be wrecked by their creator at whim. Now, God killing 'willy-nilly' is evil. How can this be? We're his toys to destroy, right?
Oh, regarding benevolence, you will not find anywhere in the Bible that God is described as "benevolent". God is described as Lord, King, Ancient of Days, Good, Love, Redeemer, Saviour, Shepherd, Judge, Holy, others that I can't recall off the top of my head.
I guess you could argue that "good" = benevolent.
To argue that God killing someo ...[text shortened]... ue that this is indeed the biggest proof of a benevolent God.
Just a thought....
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWhen? First you say that person is the same as human. Then when I correct your use of the word, you assert that such a person must act within time. To which I agreed, refining the statement that God's actions are manifested in time. You have not in any way reached a "logical conclusion" that God is constrained by time.
[b]You defined a person as "the thing which performs the action". I was simply following your definition through to its logical conclusion.
When? First you say that person is the same as human. Then when I correct your use of the word, you assert that such a person must act within time. To which I agreed, refining the statement that God's actions are ...[text shortened]... predetermined" implies that something before the person determined the action.[/b]
"Strictly speaking, the term "person" refers to the thing that performs the action"
"When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person."
"Yes, of course you act within time."
"I do recall saying that God acts within time"
You agreed with me before that God acts within time, so I didn' think I needed to prove it. Why are you retracting your statement now?
"if God is benevolent at one point in our time, He must then be benevolent at all times.", but He doesn't have to be benevolent? Make up your mind.
If my actions are predetermined by my nature, as some would argue, then I can never really choose anything and thus have no free will. If, on the other hand, I have the free will to make choices, then all of my actions cannot be predetermined by my nature. Predetermined does not imply that something before the person determined the action. but that something before the action determined the action.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidWell actually, confession has existed for longer than that. The ritual of confession has changed signficantly, though. Originally, one confessed to their entire community. But the picture of confession you paint is erroneous. Confession asks that the confessor reveal their sins, such as the sin of pride, the sin of sloth, not the circumstances of the sin, such as where, to whom, how the sin occured. Though I'm not if that's how it's practised even now. Even still, since priests have always been bound to confidence, they cannot discuss the confession to anyone else.
I refer to laws such as Confession, which was instituted at this point in English history. What better way to have control over the new converts than to know every dirty secret that they've told the priest in Confession.
Celibacy in the priesthood was also instituted at this time. According to English law at this time, when a patriarch dies the ...[text shortened]... s, I'm rambling. I hope I've made sense.
Comments, queries?
~ the Android
Clerical celibacy was introduced in the eleventh century, however, celibacy has been a requirement for beoming a bishop, and before then, celibacy was demanded heavily in the Eastern Churches and in many religious Orders. The Pope at the moment is considering re-admitting priests and semninarians who left their Holy Orders to become married.
Celibacy and Confession are called disciplinary rules. They do not form the identity of the Church but rather the dogma (which they refer to as the depository of faith). Dogma is theological, not disciplinary.
It is not held by Catholics that Mary is God. She is not "deified". The strict term they use is "venerated", meaning that she had attained sanctifying grace. We consequently pray to her as a model of faith and as an intercessor.
The Catholic Church doesn't use the word "universal" to mean "encompassing, all alone". They mean it in the sense that they welcome all universally and they will offer statistics of how many of each nationality are part of the Church.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseActing within time (which I refined to be, manifested within time) does not axiomatically mean constrained by time. You came to that conclusion, and I don't know how since you have made no attempt to prove it.
When? First you say that person is the same as human. Then when I correct your use of the word, you assert that such a person must act within time. To which I agreed, refining the statement that God's actions are manifested in time. You have not in any way reached a "logical conclusion" that God is constrained by time.
"Strictly speaking, the term "per ...[text shortened]... mined the action. but that something before the action determined the action.
If my actions are predetermined by my nature, as some would argue, then I can never really choose anything and thus have no free will.
You are your nature. If I paraphrase that statement, you are essentially saying, "if my actions are predetermined by me, as some would argue, then I can never really choose anything and thus have no free will". But I thought that we both agreed that to have free will, we must determine our own actions, right?
If, on the other hand, I have the free will to make choices, then all of my actions cannot be predetermined by my nature.
Then your actions would be random. Without determinism (or predeterminism, as you would say) follows randomness.
Predetermined does not imply that something before the person determined the action. but that something before the action determined the action.
Yes, me!
24 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseIt seems to me we are not on the same wave length ......
So killing is not killing when God does it?
I guess it follows the old saying "do as I say, not as I do"
You still haven't explained how it can be benevolent to kill someone, whoever is doing the killing.
24 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI suppose you could say I'm contradicting myself, but then again, I've never claimed to be perfect 🙂
You're contradicting yourself. Earlier, humans were nothing more than toy boats, able to be wrecked by their creator at whim. Now, God killing 'willy-nilly' is evil. How can this be? We're his toys to destroy, right?
I'm using analogies here. Mixing analogies is never a good idea, especially when you consider that if you take any analogy too far it breaks down. I used the boat analogy to show the point that God is creator. I said that God does not kill willy-nilly, there's always a judgement aspect. Though it is of course God's right to kill willy-nilly if he wished. It's a good thing he doesn't wish, eh "😉
24 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidI thought the main point of the boat analogy is that humans murdering humans is wrong, not because human life has inherent value, but rather because they are God's personal property.
I suppose you could say I'm contradicting myself, but then again, I've never claimed to be perfect 🙂
I'm using analogies here. Mixing analogies is never a good idea, especially when you consider that if you take any analogy too far it breaks down. I used the boat analogy to show the point that God is creator. I said that God does not kill will ...[text shortened]... God's right to kill willy-nilly if he wished. It's a good thing he doesn't wish, eh "😉
24 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidThen God's killing humans at whim cannot be wrong, and you live in a world where 'right' and 'wrong' are established by divine fiat.
Well that also, I guess. Humans killing humans is wrong, because they are not the creators. God is the creator, so like the boat that I have, God owns tha creation (accoridng ot Christian theology, at least).
25 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemAt its most basic level, you are correct. I guess it's a good thing then that God cares about his creation and won't go on an indiscriminate murderous rampage!
Then God's killing humans at whim cannot be wrong, and you live in a world where 'right' and 'wrong' are established by divine fiat.
25 Dec 06
Originally posted by ParanoidAndroidYeah, because if he didn't care about his creation, he might drown all of them in a worldwide flood, or order their genocide for being the wrong race, like Amalekites or Midianites, or kill people for lying to him, or...err, wait. 😕
At its most basic level, you are correct. I guess it's a good thing then that God cares about his creation and won't go on an indiscriminate murderous rampage!