Christian Doctrine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2016, 12:32 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
I never said God was evil. Evil is relative. Morality is relative. God is autonomous.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 12:52 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(19-12-2016 12:32 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I never said God was evil. Evil is relative. Morality is relative. God is autonomous.

Dodgy Well, maybe not explicitly but when we last tangled over this IIRC the end result was that you admitted that the phrase "God is good" is essentially meaningless.

Your solution is to redefine the word good to mean basically the complete opposite of its English definition. Which then begs the question, why does God spend so much time in the Bible boasting how good he is, if good is measured in terms of number of Midianite women raped and children slaughtered?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 01:00 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(18-12-2016 10:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:28 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I don't think anyone can make a square circle or a married bachelor even God.

Wow. Valid point.

I've been saying it for a long time. The GRP is dumb, and people need to stop using it.

All the GRP is a crafty use of semantics to change a definition. The paradox simply can't be because it alters the definition of what is being called into question.

Omnipotence is complete power. Just because you create a textual paradox doesn't make it a valid argument; moreover, it's a loaded question when the actual answer is, "your question is invalid".

I know you've gotten a lot of heat (I haven't read much of what you've written), but this entry is valid. Gotta give you props.

It isn't a matter of creating a textual paradox, that's relatively trivial. The question is whether god could create a logical paradox. To steal Buzz' example, could god create an object that simultaneously has the logical properties of being a square and being round?

The objective is to create the paradox without altering either definition. If you change the definition then all you've really done is unimpressively sanded the corners off of a square.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 01:06 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(19-12-2016 01:00 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 10:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Wow. Valid point.

I've been saying it for a long time. The GRP is dumb, and people need to stop using it.

All the GRP is a crafty use of semantics to change a definition. The paradox simply can't be because it alters the definition of what is being called into question.

Omnipotence is complete power. Just because you create a textual paradox doesn't make it a valid argument; moreover, it's a loaded question when the actual answer is, "your question is invalid".

I know you've gotten a lot of heat (I haven't read much of what you've written), but this entry is valid. Gotta give you props.

It isn't a matter of creating a textual paradox, that's relatively trivial. The question is whether god could create a logical paradox. To steal Buzz' example, could god create an object that simultaneously has the logical properties of being a square and being round?

The objective is to create the paradox without altering either definition. If you change the definition then all you've really done is unimpressively sanded the corners off of a square.

No it's not a logical paradox. It's just based on words.

Saying yes or no to the question changes the definition of omnipotent. There is no answer that retains the definition of the word... with that being said, the GRP is nothing more than wordplay. It's illogical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 01:09 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(19-12-2016 12:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-12-2016 12:32 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I never said God was evil. Evil is relative. Morality is relative. God is autonomous.

Dodgy Well, maybe not explicitly but when we last tangled over this IIRC the end result was that you admitted that the phrase "God is good" is essentially meaningless.

Your solution is to redefine the word good to mean basically the complete opposite of its English definition. Which then begs the question, why does God spend so much time in the Bible boasting how good he is, if good is measured in terms of number of Midianite women raped and children slaughtered?

IIRC I think it was something along the lines of "God's morality is his own. Since he is autonomous, he cannot he rightfully judged. However, based on our finite knowledge and relative morality, some of the things God does is abhorrent."

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
19-12-2016, 01:14 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(19-12-2016 01:09 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-12-2016 12:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Dodgy Well, maybe not explicitly but when we last tangled over this IIRC the end result was that you admitted that the phrase "God is good" is essentially meaningless.

Your solution is to redefine the word good to mean basically the complete opposite of its English definition. Which then begs the question, why does God spend so much time in the Bible boasting how good he is, if good is measured in terms of number of Midianite women raped and children slaughtered?

IIRC I think it was something along the lines of "God's morality is his own. Since he is autonomous, he cannot he rightfully judged. However, based on our finite knowledge and relative morality, some of the things God does is abhorrent."

Which... I translate as fancy wording for "Yes, God is evil". After all, if God really loves us, truly, and wants to minimise suffering, then since he is omnipotent he should be able to do so. You can claim that he logically cannot, which itself is a disputable claim, but that is where Paleophyte's question of whether God is limited by an inability to create paradox comes in.

Again, your solution if I recall from previous discussions has been that God really only loves a small number of us, the elect. The rest shall burn in hellfire for his pleasure. Which again, that's a really wonderful God you've got there.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 01:18 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Based on that definition of morality Cthulu is as good if not better than the Christian God. After all we can't judge Gods.

PS: KC I'm actually interested, can you justify your Christian faith over Islam or any other religion in any way? Please feel free to not answer, you're not trying to convince me of the truth of Christianity - OP is.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 01:55 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(18-12-2016 01:41 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 02:43 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Thanks to Banjo i could complete a collection of three little gems. How should we call it? Circular contradictions?

On thought police - not going to get "arrested" - punished for what you think.
On Christian morality - I stated the standard.
On the blasphemy - The one sin that was not covered by Jesus' blood. - Basically rejecting the forgiveness of sin.

All red herrings.

Please comment on the
1) contradition between not getting punished for what you think and being thrown to hell for blashpemy
2) contradiction between not getting punished for what you think, "think you should do good and do not" being a sin and being punished for sins.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
19-12-2016, 02:25 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(18-12-2016 02:33 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I have a question for you. If God exist - a supreme, all-powerful being - could He do all those things? Of course He could. You do not think He exists so for you those thing did not happen.
I believe He exists so I have no problem with them.

I have read that there is some evidence for a day standing still?
An omnipotent being is consistent with anything. Facepalm

If your god is omnipotent, then he can do anything, ranging from nothing to influence every single event that happened since the big bang. In other words: he is unfalsifiable.
If you -in retrospective- look at any event that happended since the big bang, then it was either god...or not, and you cant honestly conclude anything from this. DUH Hobo

................


(18-12-2016 04:05 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  ...God is outside of our universe ...
Please provide an explanation of how you think "being" outside the universe is possible. No need for a detailled theory or hypothesis. A raw scetch would suffice. Where "is" god, how do you define this place in terms of spacetime? How does he "exist" without space and time. How is existence without space and time possible. I dont know for my part.


............
(18-12-2016 01:54 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  The BBT is coming under scrutiny and the existence of comets and the oort cloud are part of it.

The fact that scientific theories or hypotheses are under constant scrutiny is not a "bug" its a "feature" of science. Science wants to have all its ideas questioned, all the time.
The fact that theories (aether for example, etc.) are being dismissed is evidence that the scientific method works. How about your religion? Does it promote doubt in its claims too or are nonbelievers committing the "only unforgivable sin" (see above)? Show me evidence that faith or whatever you use is a reliable path to truth.

...............

Quote:It looks like you are throwing out random crap to see what sticks. It smacks of dishonesty

I already accused you of the same stuff. So why bring up BBT, evolution and other unrelated crap when the question is: What is your christian doctrine, why should anyone beleive it, and is any of your religions claims (starting with the existence of your god) true? Even if evolution was a hoax, the big bang never happened, and gravity is an illusion, you still are not one inch closer to answering these questions.
You entered the forum claiming you can answer all our questions in defense of your faith. Its time you start doing so!

..................


(18-12-2016 04:12 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I have studied the Bible.
...and we have shown you to be ignorant about the topic of enslaving fellow hebrews, gods wrath in the NT, and many more. What is your conclusion? To question the method of science and its results. Thats dishonest.

I told you earlier, that first of all, you need to become honest with yourself, before you come to this forum, arguing with us. You are leaving a real bad taste about your character here, if you dont change that. How are we supposed to take someone serious and respect him, when he doesnt respect himself, aka. doesnt see the need to be honest with himself?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Deesse23's post
19-12-2016, 06:44 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Guess that being honest is not what he believes. Laugh out load

As to the "God cannot have the attributes claimed of him", I agree. Based on the description in the Bible, the primitive tribal war deity of the Israelites who demands blood sacrifice and genocide, who cares about who's having sex with whom (and how they do it), et cetera, I think we can say unequivocally that it's a projection of human pettiness and frailty-- a myth, and not a particularly well constructed one.

The Problem of Evil is different. It's akin to a child yelling "I HATE YOU!!" at a parent because they don't realize why the parent punished them or let them get hurt attempting something. It may seem evil to the child who is in pain, but the child simply doesn't realize the parent had a reason for allowing tragedy to occur.

We can point out the logical holes in God's claimed attributes, and the major moral flaws in God's actions as described in the Bible. And we should. But claiming God should have created the world without cancer is to presume that there's not some necessary reason for cancer to exist, which is known to the creator but not to us.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: