11 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Yeah, why reinvent the wheel? Anyway, it gets everything out at once, systematizes the argument, and answers the most common objections right at the start. If Jaywill wants to defend the God of the Bible, then he can reject the notion of God as presented in the argument, or he can reject premise (2), or he can reject premise (5). Or he could just admit that concepts like 'horrific' apply correctly to God (but I doubt he'll take that tack...).
All this sounds like the same text from the argument you had with Ivanhoe some years ago 2004, 2005 ??
You just copied and pasted it ? It sounds very familiar.
LOL .. thats cool. You have poor Jaywill sweating over getting his arguments organised and you just copy and paste .. brilliant !! 😀
Not too sure the content of your argument is brilli ...[text shortened]... . since you condemning the Almighty God, I will leave him to ZAPP you when he is good and ready.
11 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt really does not matter what the clay pot gets out of it, the potter will do what
Please see my clarifying remarks to RJ above.
Your comments do not make any sense. Moral patients are such that it matters how others treat them. It does not really make a difference here how they come into being; it still follows that God may not treat them just any old way He pleases.
the potter will do to his pot. By design the one who creates sets all standards
towards all ends, those ends being his/her own. You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
That said I do believe God's standards are by far better than our own, and
death with the human experience is simply part of the experience nothing
more. You have nothing you can put on God to suggest that God owes you
anything, all that you have you have simply due to God. I do believe
completely that it matters how God treates us, and I believe when its all said
and done, righteousness and evil will be on full display, and you will
acknoweldge that God's dealing with all of us has been fair and just, not due to
being force to, but because it will be true.
Kelly
12 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis seems to make you agree with Dasa that since animals feel pain and
Ok, sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify (and this will also be directly relevant to my back and forth with KellyJay here, too).
By a 'moral patient' I mean something that functions as the receiver of moral actions. A moral patient can be the object of our moral responsibilities and obligations, etc. Typically a moral patient is such that it ca es this type of distinction, even though it is obviously highly relevant to the discussion.
suffer when they are killed for food that it is morally wrong for us to be
meat eaters. Is this your point since pottery can feel no pain when it is
destroyed?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, this is off topic, but pottery, not potty.
This seems to make you agree with Dasa that since animals feel pain and
suffer when they are killed for food that it is morally wrong for us to be
meat eaters. Is this your point since potty can feel no pain when it is
destroyed?
Pottery is stuff made out of clay,
A potty is a kind of primitive toilet for small children.
EDIT: Thank you, its a small thing but it was driving me nuts.
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJaythe potter will do what the potter will do to his pot.
It really does not matter what the clay pot gets out of it, the potter will do what
the potter will do to his pot. By design the one who creates sets all standards
towards all ends, those ends being his/her own. You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
That said I do believe God's standards are by ...[text shortened]... of us has been fair and just, not due to
being force to, but because it will be true.
Kelly
That the potter will do what the potter will do is just tautological. So this is vacuously true and says nothing.
You want to put a standard
upon the creator and I'm asking you, who are you to do such a thing?
This thread concerns the application of the term 'horrific' to the God described in the bible under some sufficiently literal interpretation. Who are we to apply this term to this God? We are persons who have read the biblical description in question and also happen to know what the term 'horrific' means.
You have nothing you can put on God to suggest that God owes you
anything
I have psychological capacities relevant to the subject of moral status. I am a moral agent and a moral patient, in virtue of which others in my normative community owe me proper standing. That surely includes God, too, supposing He exists. That He supposedly created us makes no nevermind here. If He wants to go around creating moral agents and patients, fine. But doing so makes Him part of a greater normative community, and that carries responsibilities. You'd think He would know that, since He is supposed to be so smart and all. How smart does one really need to be to figure out that, for example, just because he created a bunch of sentient beings that does not give him license to drown them out on a whim?
you will
acknoweldge that God's dealing with all of us has been fair and just, not due to
being force to, but because it will be true.
Have you read the bible lately? It's hard to imagine a literal reading of it under which all the actions of God are fair and just.
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by stokerHe took temporary control of them, but they are not truely Satan's property,
yet in the third temptation of jesus, the devil clearly states :all the kingdoms of the world are mine and and i can give them to you if you worship me: now some translations slightly differ but the answer jesus never says is you liar, but get away you only worship the lord your god. now it seems to indicate that the world belongs to the devil
for Satan is a thief and a robber and the kingdoms of this world will be taken
back in the last days and they will become the Kingdoms of our Lord and
Savior as Revelation points out. Then Christ will be King of kings and Lord
of lords.
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsPlease try to keep your eye on the ball.
This seems to make you agree with Dasa that since animals feel pain and
suffer when they are killed for food that it is morally wrong for us to be
meat eaters. Is this your point since pottery can feel no pain when it is
destroyed?
Let's go through this again.
You put forth some manner of argument before, related to the potter/pot talk. Your implication, by way of analogy, is roughly that just like it is permissible for a potter to snuff out the pots he created if he so wishes, it is permissible for God to snuff out the creatures He created if He so wishes.
My objection, again, is that this argument does not properly consider the issue of moral status. Some things, like clay pots, are not moral patients. But other things, like sentient creatures, are moral patients.
I'll stop here and ask if we are on the same page so far. Are we?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you believe god is more powerful than satan?
He took temporary control of them, but they are not truely Satan's property,
for Satan is a thief and a robber and the kingdoms of this world will be taken
back in the last days and they will become the Kingdoms of our Lord and
Savior as Revelation points out. Then Christ will be King of kings and Lord
of lords.
12 Nov 11
imagine if you will, a typical little boy. this boy has the special magical ability to create living puppies with his thoughts.
what would be your opinion of this boy if he:
1. created puppies and then chooses some to love and others to abuse. demands full and constant attention from the puppies and for those he especially dislikes, he puts them in cages and tortures them daily.
2. created puppies and then loved and cared for them. admonished their mistakes, but never threatened, abused or tortured them?
which one does the biblegod remind you of?
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarrYou forgot all about Satan, the thief and robber, who has taken temporary
Yeah, why reinvent the wheel? Anyway, it gets everything out at once, systematizes the argument, and answers the most common objections right at the start. If Jaywill wants to defend the God of the Bible, then he can reject the notion of God as presented in the argument, or he can reject premise (2), or he can reject premise (5). Or he could just admit that concepts like 'horrific' apply correctly to God (but I doubt he'll take that tack...).
control over the earth and is a adversary against God. None of us knows
everything but it is somehow necessary for a powerful evil figure like Satan
to exists. Maybe, it is to show us that God is truely good and how things
are like with evil so that we all can truely appreciate the goodness of God
when evil is completely done away with. Who knows, but God?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you believe god is more powerful than satan?
You forgot all about Satan, the thief and robber, who has taken temporary
control over the earth and is a adversary against God. None of us knows
everything but it is somehow necessary for a powerful evil figure like Satan
to exists. Maybe, it is to show us that God is truely good and how things
are like with evil so that we all can truely appreciate the goodness of God
when evil is completely done away with. Who knows, but God?