Do Christians Worship Different Gods?

So genocide is "always immoral" because jar says so.More simplistic than simple that.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

So genocide is "bad" (a.k.s. "always immoral") because hooah says so? Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

You asked what I would think in the circumstances - not what was possible under any circumstances at all. A person willing to point a gun is to be taken seriously indeed. But I wouldn't be automatically supposing they would take the next step and shoot me given robbery a more likely motivation that killing.And so I would do precisely what you would do under the circumstances, I'd cough up the code to the safe. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Good idea! Sorry about the delay in responding.- I don't think you're arguing because you feel the Midianites were hard done by. I think you're arguing because you would object to God killing you on account of your sin (genocide merely meaning lots of you's are taken out in one place and at one time)Can I suggest that the root of your objection lies in your not feeling that your sin warrants death at God's own pleasure? That 2 grammes of selfishness here or a half an pound of lust there - doesn't warrant that level of response from God?As a way of countering, could you outline precisely how it is you come to feel you deserve to sit at the top table so as to contribute your view on this?Q: On what basis should you be invited to submit your opinion on the responses God should have to your sin?Q: Where do you derive the right-to-comment in a way that should be considered by God, precisely?It would appear to me that many assign these rights (and the value judgements that stem from them) to themselves as if they are automatically assignable. It would appear that folk view this claim strengthened by the fact that many other sinners happen to (not unsurprisingly) agree with each other.- You are not 'your own' as it stands. Your thoughts are distorted by a disease called sin (goes the argument).At Judgement, God will withdraw the freedom he has granted you to wilfully suppress the truth about your sin. This suppression is deployed by you so that you can apply a rose tinted view to the guilt and conscience that your sinning awakes in you, This in order that you can carry on with the sin-party (so the argument goes).You won't be able to reason then as you do now because you will have then a crystal clear data-set to apply your reasoning to.You will see that "Yes, I deliberately suppressed the knowledge given me that what I was doing was wrong - in order to minimize the ugliness of that wrong so that I could go on engaging in it" And.."Yes, I deliberately denied I had done wrong in order to escape that pride-denting demand on me to say 'sorry' to someone I hated having one over on me".You will see it because God can replay all your thoughts and motivations - replayed as they happened but wiped clear of the excuses and self-justifications.The sheer weight of revelation (think of the millions of clips to be watched) will be the reason why every knee will bow - even if not all will do it with delight.Unless you, like me (a sinner like you) take the alternative route offered by God.- Not if every value judgment involves sinners doing what the argument above says you are doing: suppressing truth in order to bury your own sinfulness. The tendency to seek justification (solace?) in numbers has no substance to it when no safety in numbers applies.I know you don't think much of my analogies but.. It strikes me that the common drugs: nicotine, alcohol and caffeine - all taste horrible to the uninitiated. Once you've become addicted however, the drug tastes great - largely because the taste is associated with taking the drug > which is associated with a reduction in withdrawal cravings > cravings that happen to be instigated by the previous dose > all the way back to the time you first learned to get hooked.Sinners are like drug addicts. They argue that the drug tastes fine whilst they chase after it - even knowing somewhere inside that it leads to death.To the uninitiated (or the re-born) the drug tastes absolutely awful.The idea is that at Judgement you'll have a viewpoint, like that of the uninitiated, to reason with. You'll view sin as God views it. Albeit from the wrong side of the table.-I've got to fly for now Jazzns...I'll get back to the rest over the weekend hopefully. By all means trim your responses to what you think the essence of our discussion is.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Taking this last bit first: God making a choice a 'no-brainer' dissolves the notion of choice (where 'choice' is defined as involving options which have balance in the pro's/cons's attaching to them)- The idea of balance comes into play here. It isn't fitting that God set out the full consequences of our decision either way 'in order that we can make a fully informed choice'. In producing a "no-brainer" he would also be producing a no-choice situation.What if God, instead, produced a situation on earth where we could be exposed to a balanced set of circumstances where the pro's/con's of God's-way and not-God's-way were both experienced and executed by us. A situation were we would get to experience both sides of the coin so as to decide which it was we preferred.It wouldn't matter that both sides of the coin experienced on earth weren't the fullest manifestation of what it was to experience God/no God in eternity since there is sufficient in a balanced 'taster' to establish which direction we've set our hearts on.God/no God eternity would merely be more (much more) of the same thing we plumped for here.-GDR touches on the idea here. He doesn't seem to imply that we need rely on the Bible or any other arguably flawed means of enabling our choice. Although I'd disagree with him about the nature of God, I do think this is how God supplies us with choice.

How so, spurious? Clearly the less balance there is in the options the less choice is involved.For example, let's suppose someone holds a gun to your head - the deal being that you give them a dollar or they shoot you. You have a choice of course, but the imbalance skews choice in the direction of coughing up the dollar.- The focus would appear to be on providing a balanced choice. Once that is given priority, there wouldn't appear to be anything gained by adding more information to both sides of the scales.- Indeed. If God equipped us with firm insight into both heaven and hell everybody would "choose" heaven.- Although there is no one-size-fits-all method involved in ensuring folk have the means available to them to make their choice, I gather such a balanced choice to be provided everyone. Whether they've heard of God/the Bible/Jesus or not.It would appear to rest on a matter of hearts desire rather than what might be concluded solely by an intellectual weighing up of the various propositions. Everyone has a heart that can desire, not everyone is intellectually equipped to weigh up propositions.

I didn't deny it was still a choice, I was suggesting that the more you place pressure to move in a particular direction the less free the choice. If the simile used doesn't appeal to you personally then choose one that would - I was working from the premise that most folk when faced with a gun in the face would consider that overwhelming pressure to move in a particular direction.Free (in the sense that you can always refuse). Skewed (in the sense that you are unlikely to)- That argument is easily countered by Knowledge of Good and Evil software installed in you during manufacture. Assuming it was installed.The fact that everyone is free to fiddle around with the code so as to come up with their own pirate, self-obfuscatedversions wouldn't alter anything - not least the fact of their culpability in altering the code to suit themselves.That this will produce endless debate and disagreement about what's right and wrong between various code-rewriters, isn't relevant to the only debate that matters. That between the code-rewriter and the original author.- He hides that truth because the game is played out using other tools.- To the lost it's impenetrable and useless. To the found (on on the verge of being found) it has it's uses. But I'd agree it's not mission critical.- Only if you assume intellectual assent trumps hearts desire. A heart can desire good (or evil) of a kind that can't necessarily be vocalised.

You don't believe in the existence of God, never mind Heaven or Hell. How can you be pressurized (heavenward by Heaven, hellward by Hell) by something you don't believe in?You seem to agree with the point made: as pressure tilting the scales in a particular direction goes up, so does the amount of actual choice involved go down.- The software argument says all the equipment you need* is installed. You know what's good and you know what's evil and you make choices (and experience consequences, pertaining to good and evil - both your own and others) in relation to that knowledge.* By 'you need' I mean all the knowledge God reckons he has to install in you order that your hearts desire in the matter can be established. If, for example, the negative experiences associated with your evil-doing and the positives associated with your good-doing don't combine to push you to your knees then your hearts desire is seen to want to remain in your sin.- The tools might be hidden in the sense that a person will not know the use God has in equipping them with them. Or even that God has equipped them with tools at all. Or that God exists.No matter - it's their hearts desire that God is interested in, not their knowing that he is inquiring into the direction of that desire. As I say: all that will happen in the end is that a person will have their hearts desire met - in fullest measure. What better way to give a hearts desire than inquire into what it is?- I'm not sure I follow.- The heart is the component of a person that lies at the source of choice. The intellect saying "I won't do that because it's a selfish thing and selfishness is a bad thing" is referencing the heart which informs the intellect that such and such is bad. The intellect on it's own can't arrive at a reason for moral badness. Utilitarian badness perhaps, but not moral.- Are we straying miles off topic here? Perhaps you should make your points and we'll leave it at that?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The device of 'assuming God exists for the sake of argument' places the interrogator in a neutral, observers position. As if he can examine the lay of the land from above but not be subject to it nor be part of it. This to prevent (as you yourself indicate) the uselessness of "I'll tell God what I think of him when I get to see him" followed swiftly by " I don't believe in your God" when informed why fist-waving won't actually be able to occur.From this observers position you can look at the lay of the land which includes Granny Magda on the ground. Granny-Magda-the-observer, can see that Granny-Magda-on-the-ground won't be threatened by a Hell he doesn't believe in.Neither GDR-on-the-ground nor myself-on-the-ground are being pushed by the fact of our believing in Hell. Before we were believers we were in the same position as Granny-Magda-on-the-ground is now. As believers, we know we aren't going there - so it carries no threat for us.- Firstly, the Bible is very useful to the found. It contains much useful information for their subsequent walk.That is remains opaque to the (let's call them) distant-lost isn't an issue since a) it's not aimed at the distant-lost b) the distant lost will have absolutely no interest in reading it.I would see the realm of God's activity in relation to drawing the lost elsewhere than the bible. So long as he is reaching in such a way that all might be found, I don't see the issue.- That remains to be seenEdited by iano, : No reason given.

The consensus would be arrived at because all have been equipped by God with a knowledge of good and evil in order that they would conclude genocide wrong (goes the argument). And sufficent numbers haven't descended to the pit which would permit a person to embark on genocide.A flaw appears in the consensus when folk re-direct God's steerage as to how it is men should behave w.r.t. each other so as to inform them how it is God should behave with men.At the very least, the category difference should cause a person to pause..- Did I suggest you can't create your own morality? I imagine I would have said you can construct any morality you like, justifying it in any way you like ("utility" and "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" are two commonly heard compasses). I do precisely the same as you (in my choosing the bible as my compass)The question is whether either will stand up to scrutiny. What happens if your justification is washed away like a house built on sand. I'm not saying I can prove that will occur. But it can certainly occur.- Leading to the inenviable position where what's right for collective-you is right (for collective-you).I'll try get to your other post over the weekend. Cheers..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You seem to be assuming that because you've been given (or have taken) s knowledge of good and evil, you yourself are a balanced judge - able to examine yourself against that knowledge,For such an assumption is the term "suppression of truth" coined. As in the ability to engage in suppression..