|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is God Self-Evident | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
T&u writes: This still does not change the fact that he is saying "do as I say, not as I do." Why is God exempt from his own laws? By your logic, a parent saying to his or her child can say "you may not eat cookies, " then go stuff his/her face. What if the parent said "stay away from the computer" and spent the evening on the computer themself? Would that not be a 'do as I say, not as I do? And a perfectly rightful one at that? The parent is exempt because they are the parent and the child is the child. I'll repeat the point that
quote: Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
iano writes: T&u writes:
What if the parent said "stay away from the computer" and spent the evening on the computer themself? Would that not be a 'do as I say, not as I do? And a perfectly rightful one at that? The parent is exempt because they are the parent and the child is the child. This still does not change the fact that he is saying "do as I say, not as I do." Why is God exempt from his own laws? By your logic, a parent saying to his or her child can say "you may not eat cookies, " then go stuff his/her face. I'll repeat the point that
quote: I am sorry iano, you are right- to a point. The parents in each of the situations did have a valid reason- in that they could not trust their child to intelligently mange the situations, but as such did trust themselves- or at least provided sufficient excuses. However, you still have to give us the criteria or excuse that exempts God from his own laws. Please do not answer with the argument from creation=authority. If I choose to bio-engineer a human being (hypothetically speaking), does that give me absolute/justified power over that being's existence? Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Your conflating what God decides to do himself with what God directs us not to do. God deciding to wipe out a nation using the Israelites as his weapon of choice is an altogether different matter to me deciding I'll kill my neighbour because I fancy possessing his goods. There is another distinct possibility here at play, Iano. that I'd like for you to consider. We all know that for centuries certain Muslims have been hiding behind the false justifications that they're doing Allah's will by slaughtering innocent lives. Crusaders have done the same thing in their time. Is it impossible to believe that the Israelites may have used the same false pretense, claiming that God "willed it" when in fact they came to that decision as a failsafe, blanket justification for cold-blooded murder? Perhaps to ease their own conscience?
I see no reason to skip over the righteousness of Gods actions. To repeat: God killing isn't murder (murder being defined as 'unrighteous taking of life') because the life belongs to him. Us killing without Gods say so is murder - the life isn't ours to take. So it is God's righteousness to not only smash little babies on rocks, but to "delight" in the savage act as well? What ungodly affront is God "repaying" them for? How can one determine what is actually God speaking to them versus a demonic attack feigning to be God's divine will, Iano? If what you thought was God instructed you to smash a little baby on to rocks, how would you respond? I know the whole "Lean not on your own understanding" thing, but there has to be some sensibility here. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The interesting thing is the contradiction in your claims. On the one hand you say that our conscience is the "voice of God" telling us what is good and evil and that suppressing it is wrong. On the other hand - whenever a conscience says anything which contradicts your beliefs you say that it is a subjective judgement which should be suppressed in favour of your nihilistic doctrine. In another thread you say that the love of truth is needed for salvation, In this thread it is apparent that you have no love for the truth. preferring the delusion of dogma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
PaulK writes: The interesting thing is the contradiction in your claims. On the one hand you say that our conscience is the "voice of God" telling us what is good and evil and that suppressing it is wrong. On the other hand - whenever a conscience says anything which contradicts your beliefs you say that it is a subjective judgement which should be suppressed in favour of your nihilistic doctrine. In another thread you say that the love of truth is needed for salvation, In this thread it is apparent that you have no love for the truth. preferring the delusion of dogma. Your not making a whole lot of sense. Nor are you pointing out any contradiction. More rigor and less vitriol please, if further response is desirable to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Actually we are told by writers who say that this God expects certain moral behaviors from us in order to be holy. We are told by writers that God is good; but the tales they tell, by our standards today, don't always show a good god. quote:The snack wasn't the point. The point was hidden information, which is what you are implying with God. The parent doesn't want the child to snack because the child won't eat dinner if they snack. The parent knows they themselves will still eat dinner even if they snack. They don't necessarily disclose that to the child. The parent's master plan is for the child to eat a nutritious dinner and grow up healthy. The child doesn't necessarily know this master plan and just wants to snack. The style is the important part, not that it was a snack. Parents don't always tell their children the whys of the rules they implement. That's what you are implying for God. You're saying we don't really know his moral viewpoint or his master plan; so what he does looks unfair or immoral to us because we don't have all the information, just like a child watching his parents' actions. That is the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leadership style. If the master plan and God's moral viewpoint are unknown to us, we really have no way of knowing if the killing was in accord with a divine or moral law or not. God is responsible whether he orders and supports the killings, or he does the killings himself. Since we don't know the master plan, we have no idea if the salvation you speak of is a good deal or not, or whether it will also change to suit the master plan that is unknown to us. Christians could all be cast aside once the Jews act in accordance with his master plan. We may be expendable. No guarantees. From Message 74 quote:Since God is not self-evident, then one would need to show that all life actually belongs to the God of the Bible. The lives of people who believe in another god would belong to that god, not the God of the Bible. What right does he have to take a life that belongs to another god? That makes the killing unrighteous by your definition. Edited by purpledawn, : Msg 74 "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes: There is another distinct possibility here at play, Iano. that I'd like for you to consider. We all know that for centuries certain Muslims have been hiding behind the false justifications that they're doing Allah's will by slaughtering innocent lives. Crusaders have done the same thing in their time. Is it impossible to believe that the Israelites may have used the same false pretense, claiming that God "willed it" when in fact they came to that decision as a failsafe, blanket justification for cold-blooded murder? Perhaps to ease their own conscience? For sure ... if you're an unbeliever. My argument is; a) assuming God exists and the Bible is his word b) posing a mechanism of salvation that doesn't require God to be self-evident in the light of those assumptions. It's a given that God instructed the Israelites to slaughter - what we're looking at is whether that is justified in order to decide whether unwavering morality exists (unwavering morality being a piller of the mechanism I'm posing).
So it is God's righteousness to not only smash little babies on rocks, but to "delight" in the savage act as well? What ungodly affront is God "repaying" them for? Where does this occur? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
PD writes: Actually we are told by writers who say that this God expects certain moral behaviors from us in order to be holy. We are told by writers that God is good; but the tales they tell, by our standards today, don't always show a good god. It is clearly being assumed, for the sake of presenting a mechanism of salvation not requiring Gods self-evidency, that the Bible reveals his will. If God is completely other than (it is assumed) he is revealing himself in the Bible, then of course all of this is moot. The mechanism explains why our standards might vary from his. That doesn't alter him being good. (good being defined as that which conforms to Gods will and evil defined as that which doesn't)
The style is the important part, not that it was a snack. Parents don't always tell their children the whys of the rules they implement. That's what you are implying for God. You're saying we don't really know his moral viewpoint or his master plan; so what he does looks unfair or immoral to us because we don't have all the information, just like a child watching his parents' actions. I'm saying we do know his morality and his masterplan - when he condemns as evil/unholy certain actions they are so because they run counter to who he is and what he's about. It looks unfair to the unbeliever because ... well because the unbelievers is geared towards running counter to who God is and what he's about.
Christians could all be cast aside once the Jews act in accordance with his master plan. We may be expendable. No guarantees. Granted. The argument assumes the Bible isn't a front for some other sort of God.
Since God is not self-evident, then one would need to show that all life actually belongs to the God of the Bible. The lives of people who believe in another god would belong to that god, not the God of the Bible. What right does he have to take a life that belongs to another god? That makes the killing unrighteous by your definition. Again, the assumptions on which the mechanism posed is based aren't being taken into account. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
T&u writes: However, you still have to give us the criteria or excuse that exempts God from his own laws. Please do not answer with the argument from creation=authority. If I choose to bio-engineer a human being (hypothetically speaking), does that give me absolute/justified power over that being's existence? If you bio-engineer another human being you'll have created like order and will have opened up a can of worms regarding rights. If you bio-engineer a very much lower-order creature - let's say an amoeba, then the problem diminishes. How much lower order are we than God? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
HG writes
Sometimes of their own volition, sometimes because they said God told them to. No No this is not what I am asking. What do you think is the MOTIVATION if someone does it on thier own apart from God. Do you think they think (or you) thier actions are evil or monstorous when they commit these actions against say, animals
I don't think God would ever order something like that. What kind of a God would? That kind of a God really would be a monster. I think it was the Israelites, just like modern-day Muslims, abusing their faith to enact their own retribution. Do you think God would direct the painful death and sacrifice of his own son? Peter says "Consider him that spared not his own son, how much greater will be our judgement. " To demonstrate the full circle (absolute nature)of Gods Justice along with his mercy, there will come a time when he will punish fianally and eternally those unrepented sins of which you speak. Would you say this is philosophically logical and consistent with absolute principles? now lets examine once again the consistency in our arguments. You say, there is no moral principle in your actions, yet God is blameworthy or a monster for his. Do you believe the little creatures agony and pain in eradication is deminished by your lack of moral principle?
There are only three things to deduct, logically speaking. Either the God described in those verses was not the true God, God is just as hypocritical as his creation is, or there is no God at all. Or there are moral principles that are the same as ours, but which you refuse to acknowledge in your own action, with regard to the treatment of other creatures. Your logic is flawed or at best terrible inconsistent. In this instance and according to your own words ABOVE, you are now required to give reasons (moral explanation) for your action. You ascribe them to God, why not you? are you a monster, or will you still maintain there is no moral principle. You cant eat you cake and have it.
You have to remember that you are taking cues from a collection of ancient books to make your determinations, all of which could be false. See, you're putting the cart before the horse. You are assigning the bible its authority, but it may just be a collection of books claiming to be God-inspired. Again my friend we are at present only discussing logical consistency, not the validity of this or that document. In debating this is know as a smoke screen, designed to distract or cause prejudice to a logical position.
I was a born-again Christian for many years. I have since fallen away, which may be prophetic, as it says that in the End Times there will be a great falling away! Gosh, let's hope not for my sake. I never will count God all the way out, and to be honest, I love the scriptures. There is much wisdom to be found in it and it really has some of the most beautiful things in it. But I've found myself at the crossroads, whether I wanted to or not. Your honestly is refreshing, it is my desire that you choose the right path and think about it logically and pray about the matter
Don't you ever wonder why there is such a stark contrast between the OT and the NT? He goes from slaying infants to longsuffering. That's difficult to wrap your mind around, regardless of whether or not we now live in an age of grace. As a Seminary student the one thing that gave me the most fits was the slaughtering of the innocence, until I realized three things, he spared not his own Son, God is the creator and holds sin in the highest and most ABSOLUTE degree possible as an abomination and that there are PRINCIPLES in his existence that superceed any PHYSICAL condition or painful situation and death is not the end of existence. Now thats easy for me to say because I have suffered nothing, but it makes sense spiritually and morally. Besides as IANO and others have said, that which we see inside ourselves is TOO EASY, to miss More in a minute EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Don't you ever wonder why there is such a stark contrast between the OT and the NT? He goes from slaying infants to longsuffering. That's difficult to wrap your mind around, regardless of whether or not we now live in an age of grace. Not if the NT is to be believed about the final judgement, I would consider the one in the OLD TEST a gentle giant compared to the one in the NT. Its the same God, but there was a need to instruct man gradually in Gods view., ie God instructed Moses not let the children of I to approach the mountain or theywould surely die. , to teach them of Gods holiness. The Law was a schoolmaster to BRING US TO CHRIST., "IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON INTO THE WORLD, ETC, ETC
Yes, but the issue here is whether or not Rahab's lie was justified or whether or not it was absolutely wrong, especially in light of the fact that God, according to the scriptures, blessed her for it. I mean, she was helping people from being killed. In that instance, is it really wrong of her? If we think logically about why lying is a sin, can't we determine that lying is a way to unrighteously gain something untrue? If the intent is righteous, why is it not righteous? Wouldn't it be much like stealing? If you procure something, there is nothing wrong with it, right? But only if you procure something by depriving someone else what is rightfully theirs. That's what makes the difference, and is therefore relative to the circumstances involved. So it is with Rahab I agree essentially with what you are saying here, however, the one that determined what Sin is also provides Mercy and forgiveness. Hopefully the mind set of a person that accepts God is not going to be "unrighteous gain"
Even allowing this, what possible sin could infants do to God that they are some how deserving to have their skulls smashed open? At some point, don't you say this is inconsistent with everything I know about God? None, it was not for thier sins that this was accomplished but thier parents, who had become dispicable beyond belief God woulndt do anything to others that he wouldnt do to his own, in this respect . Jesus Christ. He sent them Lawgivers, Judges, Kings and prophets, then finally his own self and Son. I can do all this logically but essentially Im going to TRUST that the only Real thing in existence knows what he is doing. I guess we have to choose our own path for our own reasons I dont pretend to understand it all either, until I think about Jesus Christ EAM More later I look forward to your next response Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I stated,
quote: My argument is; a) assuming God exists and the Bible is his word b) posing a mechanism of salvation that doesn't require God to be self-evident in the light of those assumptions. That's a tautology and circular reasoning. What you are saying is, assuming that God is real and the Bible is true, everything in the Bible is therefore "self-evident." That's not how things work, as you set up an answer to ANY question a priori.
It's a given that God instructed the Israelites to slaughter - what we're looking at is whether that is justified in order to decide whether unwavering morality exists (unwavering morality being a piller of the mechanism I'm posing). What is unwaivering morality mean?
quote: Where does this occur? Psalm 137 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
No No this is not what I am asking. What do you think is the MOTIVATION if someone does it on thier own To plunder their enemies for riches and to rid themselves of competition.
apart from God. Do you think they think (or you) thier actions are evil or monstorous when they commit these actions against say, animals Depends on the method.
Do you think God would direct the painful death and sacrifice of his own son? Seems like a self-righteous suicide since God could have simply forgiven all without butchering his son/himself.
Would you say this is philosophically logical and consistent with absolute principles? No, because he forced a perfect being without sin to die on behalf of all sinners. Remember, Jesus didn't want to do it, but did so out of obedience.
You say, there is no moral principle in your actions, yet God is blameworthy or a monster for his. Do you believe the little creatures agony and pain in eradication is deminished by your lack of moral principle? You keep overlooking one hugely critical factor here. According to your beliefs, God is the Creator of all, that includes our own nature. That logically makes God responsible for our actions since he all but forced man to be sinful and then turns around and punishes man for something he never chose and can't even control! The bible says that none are without sin. If that's the case, then it is impossible NOT to sin. So how then would God not be culpable?
Or there are moral principles that are the same as ours, but which you refuse to acknowledge in your own action, with regard to the treatment of other creatures. Your logic is flawed or at best terrible inconsistent. In this instance and according to your own words ABOVE, you are now required to give I've never said that there no moral imperative, I simply said in response to your quesiton of moral I'm following when I kill an insect, that I am not thinking of any moral when it comes to the life of an insect.
You ascribe them to God, why not you? are you a monster, or will you still maintain there is no moral principle. You cant eat you cake and have it. I didn't create the capacity for death, suffering, hatred, sin, or any negative connotation you can think of. God did! I am an imperfect being with limited knowledge. He is a flawless, perfect, ominipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient Being who has the luxury of knowing everything. At ANY point God could put a stop to all of this misery and suffering and create a perfect world, or simply be content within Himself. But he doesn't do that, does he? He wants it like this so that he can be worshiped. You defend God no matter what. Why? Why can't you question why things are the way they are because theoretically God is perfect?
Again my friend we are at present only discussing logical consistency, not the validity of this or that document. In debating this is know as a smoke screen, designed to distract or cause prejudice to a logical position. So then we'll assume that the entirety of the bible is infallible. That being the case, how do you reconcile the ordered slaughter of infants with compassion, love, justice, or mercy? Give me any verse in the bible that points to the notion that infants are full of sin, deserving of death. Have to answer the rest a little later. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I don't ever want to step into a church full of people who actually believe that what you just dished out is real. Anything said to be the will of the God of the Judeo/Christian Bible is good. Anything contrary is bad. The problem is that there are other religions who worship other gods and odds are their holy writings imply the same thing.
quote:Why does the mechanism need to be based on assumptions? Either it exists or it doesn't. With all these assumptions, you're really just writing a back story to fit your story. The story changes to fit the needs of the writer. I don't see anything based in reality. Only in your story are the nonbelievers geared towards running counter to who God is and what he's about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But your arguments aren't logically consistent. If you disagree, show me the logical consistency in your argument. Like Iano, you're basing your whole premise on a very big assumption concerning one book. Let's assume nothing in the Bible is real or true. The stories are all exaggerated and politically skewed. Morals are a creation of humanity. They come from the human mind. They are imposed or followed by humans. Emotions, usually fear, are a big part of creating morals. Looking through history we can see that morals change over time and vary from civilization to civilization. The Bible writers use fear to impose the morals of their time, whether it is fear of physical death, plagues, or eternal death. Our lawmakers today use fear to impose new laws or to gain compliance. Why can people kill non-humans without guilt or shame? Lack of emotion. To imply that your God lacks emotion towards people is contrary to the teaching that God loves all people. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024