Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The First Knight

To continue on the theme of chivalry, when I read Lewis’s essay on the topic, I couldn’t help but see beyond what he was saying. I am not sure whether he was thinking in this direction for he did not take his essay there, but I instantly saw something more.


There did not seem to be any disagreements on the point from my previous post that, “A soldier without gentleness would be apt to be barbaric, but a gentleperson without valor may be cowardice.”


Nor was there disagreement that “chivalry is a combination of the hero of great valor on the battle field and the mild mannered noble. For example, Aragorn of Lord of the Rings was both a valiant warrior and a kind gentleman. He was both severe in battle and kind hearted in life.”


We all seemed to agree that chivalry as described is a good and honorable thing. A thing that is neither a brute nor a coward, but a well rounded, just, and good attribute artfully maintained.


The thing that instantly came to mind when reading Lewis’s essay is that chivalrous is a good descriptive word for God. The picture he painted as ideal was that which describes the God of the Bible; the valiant warrior justly upholding all goodness while at the same time kindly and mercifully bringing the way of salvation to all sinners. God is the ultimate King with full qualities of Knighthood.


The reason we admire and have honored the chivalrous is because we see and are drawn by the goodness therein of such a character. We see such people as deserving of honor and knighthood. These people are shining an attribute of God. Chivalry is good, not just because it benefits survival of civilization, but because it mirrors the One who is Good.

184 comments:

CyberKitten said...

Well, your good start with the whole chivalry thing has just crashed and burned I'm afraid.....

Karla said...

You just mean our agreement was left back at the last post, right?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: You just mean our agreement was left back at the last post, right?

Pretty much. I agree that concepts such as chivalry, honour and virtue are important and should be encouraged in modern society. But I think that we don't need God - or any other supernatural agency - to underpin it. People are quite able to come up with the concepts and then attempt to live up to their own ideals on their own.

Karla said...

Actually I was only making the point that God as described in the Bible is chivalrous.

Ali P said...

'Actually I was only making the point that God as described in the Bible is chivalrous.'

I believe that the God described in the Bible is far from chivalrous; he's responsible for some terrible events.

Karla said...

Ali, is it terrible for a good King to bring justice?

Is there never a just cause for battle?

Would not a King that never rises against evil, not be a good King?

Ali P said...

'Ali, is it terrible for a good King to bring justice?'

No

'Is there never a just cause for battle?'

No

'Would not a King that never rises against evil, not be a good King?'

No

BUT, the words just and justice don't seem to apply to some of God's actions. Basically, today, he would be tried for war crimes.

Karla said...

I asked "'Ali, is it terrible for a good King to bring justice?'"

You answered "No"

We agree there.

I asked "'Is there never a just cause for battle?"

Ali answered "No"

To clarify, you do not ever see that there could be a just reason for war or the taking of a life?



I asked "'Would not a King that never rises against evil, not be a good King?'"



Ali answered "No"

I need to clarify this one because I had like a double or triple negative in my question.

Is it good for a King to do nothing in response to evil?





Ali "BUT, the words just and justice don't seem to apply to some of God's actions. Basically, today, he would be tried for war crimes."


Could it be a matter of how you are perceiving His actions? That maybe there is more to the story than what seems obvious to you?

DS said...

Ali, this is something that I picked up from this blog a awhile back.

"The evil and suffering in the world
is hence a product of the gravity of sin,
causing corruption in man and in creation."

"BUT, the words just and justice don't seem to apply to some of God's actions. Basically, today, he would be tried for war crimes"

Interesting view, but incomplete in explanation. Every war crime in history has a reason behind it, be it for territory, or for other personal reasons. We must all recognize that these wars are a result of our own selfish desires and sins, and not of God's.

In essence, what you are doing is to take out a blade, stab yourself, and then blame God for :
-The existence of the blade
-Why he did not stop the blade from entering
-Why you feel hurt after the stab
-Why you might die from blood loss.

Similarly, what you are doing now is to take the ways of mankind, and blame God for it.

Ali P said...

‘I asked "'Is there never a just cause for battle?"
Ali answered "No"
To clarify, you do not ever see that there could be a just reason for war or the taking of a life? ‘
You misunderstand me. Yes, I do believe there are just reasons for taking a life.

‘Is it good for a King to do nothing in response to evil? ‘
No, it is bad.

‘Could it be a matter of how you are perceiving His actions? That maybe there is more to the story than what seems obvious to you?’
I have a problem finding justice in acts genocide.

Ali P said...

'Interesting view, but incomplete in explanation. Every war crime in history has a reason behind it, be it for territory, or for other personal reasons. We must all recognize that these wars are a result of our own selfish desires and sins, and not of God's.

In essence, what you are doing is to take out a blade, stab yourself, and then blame God for :
-The existence of the blade
-Why he did not stop the blade from entering
-Why you feel hurt after the stab
-Why you might die from blood loss.'

I’m not referring to in-action, or all war crimes (in the name of God or not). I’m talking about acts of genocide carried out by God or incited by God directly.

Karla said...

Ali,

So we are agreed that there are just reasons to take a life and that a good King ought to do something about evil.

The problem you see is that God wiping out an whole community of people can never be justified. It's too abhorant to consider finding justice there? Is that right?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: The problem you see is that God wiping out an whole community of people can never be justified. It's too abhorant to consider finding justice there? Is that right?

How can killing men, women *and* children ever be justified? Isn't killing innocents inherently wrong or do you believe that children are as responsible for their so-called 'sins' as adults?

When God commanded that "whole communities" be wiped out there must have been among the dead either new borns or babies still in the womb. How can you justify the killing of such innocents? Or is it a case that anything God does, or commands other to do, is *inherently* justified because it is God giving the command?

Ali P said...

'The problem you see is that God wiping out an whole community of people can never be justified. It's too abhorant to consider finding justice there? Is that right?'

I don't like to use the word 'never', but that is a pretty accurate statement.

Karla said...

Cyber "How can killing men, women *and* children ever be justified? Isn't killing innocents inherently wrong or do you believe that children are as responsible for their so-called 'sins' as adults?"

I think the Bible only records 2 times women and children were killed and in each time the community was given many years of years of warning in one of the two instances I believe it was hundreds of years of warnings and opportunities to change their ways. Also "death" for children would mean early transition to life. It wasn't the end all for them, they would have been immediately with the Lord. I have seen homes here on earth that sometimes you have to wonder with all the pain the children endure growing up in such a home would not heaven be more merciful to them than life here. Maybe life in those instances in those communities was such as that or worse for children. One such community, I believe, was practicing child sacrifice. Imagine the horror there. Would not heaven be better?






Cyber "When God commanded that "whole communities" be wiped out there must have been among the dead either new borns or babies still in the womb. How can you justify the killing of such innocents?"


See my above response.


Cyber "Or is it a case that anything God does, or commands other to do, is *inherently* justified because it is God giving the command?"

Nope. What He commands is good because He is good, not because He arbitrarily commands it. I have posts on this.

Karla said...

Ali, so you do leave a little crack of a window open to the possibility there could be just reason. . . See my response to Cyber on the topic as to my thoughts on it.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I think the Bible only records 2 times women and children were killed

Oh, I see..."only two times". Simply astounding.

Welp, that's two times too many, Karla, and any being who commands such brutality and killing - whether they be "King", "God", or whoever - should be denounced(if such a being actually existed).

Continues...and in each time the community was given many years of years of warning in one of the two instances I believe it was hundreds of years of warnings and opportunities to change their ways.

Yes, change your ways within such and such time, or I'll KILL you!!! That's fair, right?

It's just too bad that "God" won't employ this very same policy for the big, bad Debil..i.e...the guy who is purportedly responsible for making people go against "God" in the first place. But no, that would make too much sense.

Cyberkitten asks: "Or is it a case that anything God does, or commands other to do, is *inherently* justified because it is God giving the command?"

Karla responds: Nope. What He commands is good because He is good, not because He arbitrarily commands it.

That's odd, you say "nope", when in fact, you are essentially saying "yep", in that, according to you, whatever your "God" commands - even the KILLING of children, women, and the unborn - is "Good, because said "God" is intrinsically "Good".

Yes, according to statements herein, killing is evidentally 'okay' when/if a deadline is not met. Imagine if the school board sent home a letter saying,

"Dear parents,

We will now give defiant teens a deadline to straighten up, and if they don't comply within the designated time-frame, we will then stone them to death.

Thank you."

We'd have those people fired in a heart-beat(and probably locked up in a luny-bin). Yet, acts such as stoning teens and dashing children against rocks is 'okay' if biblegod endorses it.

DS said...

"Yes, according to statements herein, killing is evidentally 'okay' when/if a deadline is not met."

In fact, it is. It just depends on how you look at it.

Killing is God's punishment, between students and teachers, the punishments are different as well.

"Dear Parent,
Please ensure that your child submits his school projects regularly on time or he shall risk being suspended from school"

Simple? A few hundred years is a lot of time to change in my opinion. Habits can be broken in 6 weeks. That would be Roughly 870 times that they could change that habit/sin (assuming that God was mean and only gave them 100 years precisely only)

What isn't fair about it?

"Yes, change your ways within such and such time, or I'll KILL you!!! That's fair, right?"

Wrong, Change your ways within such and such time, or I will have no choice but to punish you, so that you can wake up your ideas.

And yes, God is still good despite killing large masses of people. The bible states God as extremely holy, so much so that unholy people in his sight would die just being near him. In a sense, God is fire, we are wood. If we come near him, we get burned.

Even in the past, as the priest does the annual offering, people would tie a rope to the priest's legs, with bells attached to it, before he walks inside the sacred altar to present offering and start prayer. This is so that in case the priest ever died (burned like wood), they would be able to drag him out. The priest is supposed to be the most holy person during such times.

boomSLANG said...

DS: Killing is God's punishment, between students and teachers, the punishments are different as well.

So why shouldn't what teachers decide to be a "Good" punishment for disobedient teenaged students not be based on what "God" says is a "Good" punishment for teens, especially if we are to believe that our entire sense of "Morality" is ("objectively") based on "God"? Why, if it is ordered from "God", is it "moral" to punish defiant teens by stoning them(possibly killing them), but it is "immoral" if the same punishment is ordered from a teacher?

Continues....A few hundred years is a lot of time to change in my opinion. Habits can be broken in 6 weeks. That would be Roughly 870 times that they could change that habit/sin (assuming that God was mean and only gave them 100 years precisely only)

A person could be told, "Hey, I've been telling you for seven weeks to straighten up, or else!" Conversely, a person cannot honestly be told, "Hey, I've been telling you for seven generations to straighten up!", because, obviously, the person being reprimanded has not been alive for that long. That is how it's not a fair comparison.

BTW, is it possible for we mortal human bengs to be completely "sinless"? If not, then for biblegod to ask someone to "change" their "sin", is to ask them to do the impossible, in which case, the amount of time that one is given to "change", is irrelevant.

Continues...And yes, God is still good despite killing large masses of people.

So then, I take it if "God" commanded that all nonbelievers be put to death - women and children, too - that you'd not only join in, but feel that it is a "good" thing to do. Right? If not, why not?

Ali P said...

'Wrong, Change your ways within such and such time, or I will have no choice but to punish you, so that you can wake up your ideas.'

Which of course means:
'"Yes, change your ways within such and such time, or I'll KILL you!'

Such a loving God!

DS said...

Obviously you do not understand proper English and explanation, thus, I shall ignore you worthless comment.

cl said...

Karla,

Interesting post. I think your last sentence is pretty much an answer to Euthyphro, if that makes sense: "is what's good good because the gods say it's good, or because it's good?"

Why not both?

As for the whole genocide thing, seems to be a false argument to me. I'm willing to bet I can conceive of instances of annihilation of entire species that Ali P or any atheist would deem "good" or at least beneficial. How much more so should we grant that responsibility to a maximally intelligent God?

CK,

Well, Goethe said something like "don't look for anything behind things," or "things are lessons in themselves." I can't recall exactly off hand so don't quote me, but kind of tracks alongside what you said. Even though, I disagree.

Ali P said...

'I'm willing to bet I can conceive of instances of annihilation of entire species that Ali P or any atheist would deem "good" or at least beneficial'

Go on then

boomSLANG said...

"is what's good good because the gods say it's good, or because it's good?"

Why not both?

I supposed it can be "both", provide all the "gods" agree on what's "good".

Here is the dilemma posed another way(monotheistic): "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

If something can be "good"(or, "moral"), not only in conjunction with "God" saying so, but outside of "God" saying so, then we'd need to know for certain that this "God" hasn't simply come along and agreed that it's "good" as an after-thought, as in, for the very same reasons that *we* might agree it's "good". For if "good" can exist independently of "God" - for example, if *we* define it - well, surely, any Theist can see the problem with that.

As for the whole genocide thing, seems to be a false argument to me. I'm willing to bet I can conceive of instances of annihilation of entire species that Ali P or any atheist would deem "good" or at least beneficial.

We're not talking about an "entire species"--at least I'm not. I'm talking about a specific "God" from a specific religious doctrine who destroyed specific groups within a "species". I'm also talking about what I see as a double ("Morality") standard..i.e.. one standard for "God"; one standard for human beings, when we are to believe that the "Moral Standard" of "God" is objective/universal/unchanging.

For instance, if it is "moral" for biblegod to slaughter entire races of people for, say, worshipping "false gods", then why isn't "moral" for Christians to go around killing Buddhists and Muslims? If it is(or was) "moral" for Christ's disciples to kill anyone who would lead them away from biblegod - even family members - then why aren't Christians out killing Atheists, instead of just debating them?

Using the "student" example again---if biblegod says it's 'okay' to throw rocks at defiant teenaged students, then we can assume it's the "Moral" thing to do, right? I believe so, in which case, why is it not "moral" for teachers to impliment a "stoning" policy for defiant teens?

How much more so should we grant that responsibility to a maximally intelligent God?

That's just it---I don't believe a "maximally intelligent God" would behave as the god decribed in the bible. Surely such a god, in its supposed omniscience, foresaw the problem-potential with its "creation". Even minimally intelligent beings tend to avoid problems they can foresee.

cl said...

Ali P,

Species probably wasn't the word I should have used, at least not right off. When animal populations pose legitimate threats to human civilizations, or even human profits, we see fit to eliminate them, and that despite the fact we didn't create them. One city I used to live in wiped out the entire population of beach dwelling squirrels when they were found to be carriers of some virus. We have a euphemism for this, "pest control." Worse, we do this even when animals simply threaten money. I'm willing to bet that most atheists don't judge the pesticide and pest control industries with nearly the same fervor as God is being judged here.

boomSLANG,

What separates the hero from the murder suspect?

DS said...

"Here is the dilemma posed another way(monotheistic): "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

If something can be "good"(or, "moral"), not only in conjunction with "God" saying so, but outside of "God" saying so, then we'd need to know for certain that this "God" hasn't simply come along and agreed that it's "good" as an after-thought, as in, for the very same reasons that *we* might agree it's "good". For if "good" can exist independently of "God" - for example, if *we* define it - well, surely, any Theist can see the problem with that."


From the point of view as a Christian, what is moral is because God has commanded it. Why so? Because God made men in his image. We all know that God has no physical state that we know of, thus, this image referred to his characteristics or otherwise known as the "Godly state of mind/behaviour"

In that case, all our moral values, how we differentiate the right from the wrong, how we determine the good from the bad, the way we judge whether something should be considered moral or not, all came from God. Because God is moral, and we judge morality base on God.

Ali P said...

'In that case, all our moral values, how we differentiate the right from the wrong, how we determine the good from the bad, the way we judge whether something should be considered moral or not, all came from God. Because God is moral, and we judge morality base on God'

Then why do some of God's actions seem immoral?

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Oh, I see..."only two times". Simply astounding.”

I understand that that would be two times too many if it was not a just thing for God to do. I plan this coming year to research these accounts more, because my knowledge of them is a little rusty.

BoomSlang “Welp, that's two times too many, Karla, and any being who commands such brutality and killing - whether they be "King", "God", or whoever - should be denounced(if such a being actually existed). “

I’ll ask you what I asked Ali, “can there ever be a just reason for taking a life?”

Continues...and in each time the community was given many years of years of warning in one of the two instances I believe it was hundreds of years of warnings and opportunities to change their ways.

BoomSlang “Yes, change your ways within such and such time, or I'll KILL you!!! That's fair, right?”

Death is only the end of life on this earth.


BoomSlang “It's just too bad that "God" won't employ this very same policy for the big, bad Debil..i.e...the guy who is purportedly responsible for making people go against "God" in the first place. But no, that would make too much sense.”

He has defeated the Devil and He will one day soon lock him up forever.


BoomSlang “That's odd, you say "nope", when in fact, you are essentially saying "yep", in that, according to you, whatever your "God" commands - even the KILLING of children, women, and the unborn - is "Good, because said "God" is intrinsically "Good". “

That rephrased what she said and has a different meaning. Yes God does good things because God is good. The things God does doesn’t become good because He wills it, but because He is already good.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “BTW, is it possible for we mortal human bengs to be completely "sinless"? If not, then for biblegod to ask someone to "change" their "sin", is to ask them to do the impossible, in which case, the amount of time that one is given to "change", is irrelevant.”

It has always been possible with Christ. That’s just it, it isn’t possible on our own, but with Christ it is and all the law and the consequences of breaking the law are to point all of humanity to that redemptive reality.

Karla said...

Ali "Which of course means:
'"Yes, change your ways within such and such time, or I'll KILL you!'

Such a loving God!"


I thought we agreed that a good King would do something about evil? It seems you think a good God would let evil continue unabated without any severe consequences?

Karla said...

Why not both?

BoomSlang “I supposed it can be "both", provide all the "gods" agree on what's "good".”

So goodness always comes back to democratic agreement? Something then is good because there is agreement on its goodness rather than it being good because it really is good. . .



BoomSlang “Here is the dilemma posed another way(monotheistic): "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"


I would answer not both, but neither. God is the ultimate and only Good. For anything else to be good in the real sense of the word it must be aligned with Him. If there was a standard outside Him that He had to bend to He would not be God. Also where would such a standard come from? We would be speaking in abstractions like Plato. Plato had a good general idea, but he had nothing to root it to. Where was this absolute goodness? There had to have Being first.



BoomSlang “We're not talking about an "entire species"--at least I'm not. I'm talking about a specific "God" from a specific religious doctrine who destroyed specific groups within a "species". I'm also talking about what I see as a double ("Morality") standard..i.e.. one standard for "God"; one standard for human beings, when we are to believe that the "Moral Standard" of "God" is objective/universal/unchanging.”


The standard is the same, but God is Eternal Being, always I AM. If we live by what is past, we aren’t living in according to what is now. He is the same today as in the days of Moses, but we are different. If we take something He did and do it again because He had done it before, we most likely would not be doing the right thing. That doesn’t make the thing He did not right, it means that to do it now is to do it in a different world.

The Bible teaches us to live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. To hear Him and do what He is doing now in the earth, not what He did a long time ago (in our time line). When people use the Bible as a guidebook for how to live without knowing God they can get themselves into some trouble and bad ways of thinking.

God is a relational Being and us doing things on our own no matter how “good” we might think those things are, is never the best way of doing things. We are to have our being in relation with Him and to live out of that place. Not following some old laws, or old stories, but seeing how those stories and laws point to Him and following not them, but Him.

Karla said...

DS “From the point of view as a Christian, what is moral is because God has commanded it. Why so?”

I would disagree with this. This statement would mean that God could make something otherwise evil good, because the command came from Him. See my post on the Euthyphro Problem linked under important reads.

DS “In that case, all our moral values, how we differentiate the right from the wrong, how we determine the good from the bad, the way we judge whether something should be considered moral or not, all came from God. Because God is moral, and we judge morality base on God.”

Also I would say that man acquired the current way of thinking about good v. bad from the Garden when we took on the knowledge of good and evil. Only man thinks in terms of good v. bad. God doesn’t have to decide between the two, He is Good and all He thinks and does is good.

It is man that makes things about morality instead of holiness and righteousness. When we are transformed by Christ we should be thinking not in terms of “good v. bad” but flowing out of what is righteous because Righteousness Himself flows from us.

Karla said...

Ali “Then why do some of God's actions seem immoral?”

We see things as good v. bad based on our perception of them. And we don’t see perfectly. To ask your question, we must assume for the sake of the question that God exists and if God exists He would be perfect and see perfectly and act perfectly.

The question should be why do we think we can judge God when we know our nature is duplicitous and we know we can’t see perfectly. Why would we then judge the only one who can see perfectly and think for even a minute we might see better than He who created all?

Ali, also, I like having you here, I like considering your questions and I’m glad you ask such questions.

DS said...

"I would disagree with this. This statement would mean that God could make something otherwise evil good"

Strictly speaking, he could couldn't he? He just don't, or won't.

cl said...

In response to DS',

"In that case, all our moral values, how we differentiate the right from the wrong, how we determine the good from the bad, the way we judge whether something should be considered moral or not, all came from God. Because God is moral, and we judge morality base on God"

Ali P asked,

"Then why do some of God's actions seem immoral?"

I'd say the answer has to do with intelligence, and human inaccessibility to knowledge.

Karla said...

DS "I would disagree with this. This statement would mean that God could make something otherwise evil good"

DS "Strictly speaking, he could couldn't he? He just don't, or won't."

The Bible says God cannot lie not that He won't. I think if He could do something not good then that would mean His nature is not good. How can someone completely righteous do something not righteous?

We do things that are not righteous when we live from our fallen nature, not when we are properly living from His nature.


Now with Jesus, He for a time, relinquished His "God" nature to live as a human, so while Jesus was on earth He was really tempted and really could have done the wrong thing.

Ali P said...

'I thought we agreed that a good King would do something about evil?'

Doesn't mean I agree it was the right thing to do.

Ali P said...

'The question should be why do we think we can judge God when we know our nature is duplicitous and we know we can’t see perfectly. Why would we then judge the only one who can see perfectly and think for even a minute we might see better than He who created all?'

''d say the answer has to do with intelligence, and human inaccessibility to knowledge.'

I think I see what your trying to get at, but it just doesn't 'fit' for me.

Karla said...

Ali "I think I see what your trying to get at, but it just doesn't 'fit' for me."

By "doesn't fit" do you mean it doesn't click yet (ie make sense yet) or that you just don't like it.

boomSLANG said...

cl: What separates the hero from the murder suspect?

With all due respect, I sometimes find conversations with those who hold completely opposing view points tedious enough, without having to decipher "proverb"-like analogies. If you feel like making your point more directly, but especially, illustrating how it pertains to "Morality" and "God", etc., then fine, feel free. If not, that's fine too.

Ali asks: "Then why do some of God's actions seem immoral?"

cl: I'd say the answer has to do with intelligence, and human inaccessibility to knowledge.

Red herring. Just because we humans don't have unlimited "knowledge" doesn't mean that we can't "know"(or decide) that when/if someone comes along and commands us to do things that cause unnecessary harm to us and our loved ones, that it is "wrong", and/or, is an immoral act. If we are prepared to say, "Yeah, sure, whatever you say" just because it's a being who claims to know things that we don't, then I contend that this is very dangerous position to hold.

Karla: I thought we agreed that a good King would do something about evil? It seems you think a good God would let evil continue unabated without any severe consequences?

Do something about it? Karla, letting "evil" *subsist* is about the best example of not doing something about it, I can think of. Especially, if we assume that "God" is actually more powerful than "evil", in which case, "God" could eliminate it.

DS: From the point of view as a Christian, what is moral is because God has commanded it.

You are only underscoring my long-standing objection to your reasoning. Again, if what you just said is true, then "God" could command, literally, anything it wanted, with zero regard to any external concept of "right" or "wrong", and you would have to see it as the "Moral" thing to do. Mind you, this is even if the command was something that we all agreed was harmful to human beings--for instance, throwing stones at defiant teenagers as a "punishment". Or taking your enemy's children, and dashing them against rocks(and being "blessed" to do it). This, in my view, is why your belief is dangerous, and why it should be denounced.

Ali P said...

'By "doesn't fit" do you mean it doesn't click yet (ie make sense yet) or that you just don't like it.'

Doesn't make any sense, don't think ever will. Another reason I don't believe I guess.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: We see things as good v. bad based on our perception of them. And we don’t see perfectly.

Another red herring. Just because we don't "see perfectly" doesn't mean that we are completely incapable of "seeing"(determining) for ourselves what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable", in the case that we are given "commands" or "laws".

Karla: To ask your question, we must assume for the sake of the question that God exists and if God exists He would be perfect and see perfectly and act perfectly.

So, if you were commanded to dash your enemy's children against rocks, in this case, our opponents in the Middle East, you'd see this as a "perfect" solution, right? If so, then you'd go enlist and take part in it, if your "God" asked you to, right?

Karla: Also I would say that man acquired the current way of thinking about good v. bad from the Garden when we took on the knowledge of good and evil.

But notice, "man" wasn't cognizant of the concept of "good vs bad" *before* he made the infamous decision to act "bad". Moreover, if the alleged first two human prototypes were "created" in "God's image", then they were presumably incapable of acting "bad", or choosing "wrongly", unless of course you are saying that "God" has the propensity to act "bad" and choose "wrongly", too.

Karla: Only man thinks in terms of good v. bad. God doesn’t have to decide between the two, He is Good and all He thinks and does is good.

So, it's "Good" to "create evil", then.

Karla: It is man that makes things about morality instead of holiness and righteousness. When we are transformed by Christ we should be thinking not in terms of “good v. bad” but flowing out of what is righteous because Righteousness Himself flows from us.

We've been over this dozens of times. Those who claim to be "transformed by Christ" are no more impervious to human error than anyone else. There are "good" and "bad" people of all religious and non-religious persuasions. If a "sinless" nature is unacheivable by we mortals, then there can never be any objective way to determine if anyone is really "transformed", or not.

cl said...

boomSLANG,

If you can answer my question, please do. It's not a trick question, nor proverb-like, and if you'll answer it, I'll explain how that answer ties everything together. Given two people that have both killed, what separates the hero from the murder suspect?

"Just because we humans don't have unlimited "knowledge" doesn't mean that we can't "know"(or decide) that when/if someone comes along and commands us to do things that cause unnecessary harm to us and our loved ones, that it is "wrong", and/or, is an immoral act."

Who's said that?

boomSLANG said...

cl: Given two people that have both killed, what separates the hero from the murder suspect?

But why "murder suspect", as opposed to just "murderer"? Surely you'll concede that a murder "suspect" may be innocent.

In any event, I understand "murder" to mean the premeditated, unnecessary taking of a life. I'm going with that definition, until/unless I hear otherwise. In which case---the distinction I make is that a "hero" might take a life to prevent the unnecessary harm of the group. That's my answer.

Previously, me: "Just because we humans don't have unlimited 'knowledge' doesn't mean that we can't 'know'(or decide) that when/if someone comes along and commands us to do things that cause unnecessary harm to us and our loved ones, that it is 'wrong', and/or, is an immoral act."

cl: Who's said that?

I said it, and I based it on the following, which, if I understand correctly, was supposed to *explain* why some things that "God" does seem "immoral":

cl: "I'd say the answer has to do with intelligence, and human inaccessibility to knowledge."

I take this to mean that humans don't have access to "Ultimate" knowledge, and thus, that there may be a "reason" that is "above" our limited intelligence/perception that reconciles why "God" does things that seem "immoral". If I've misunderstood it, my apologies---feel free to clarify what you meant by said statement.

cl: When animal populations pose legitimate threats to human civilizations, or even human profits, we see fit to eliminate them, and that despite the fact we didn't create them.

Exactly---we didn't "create" them, and there is no evidence that they were "created". But for sake of argument, let's say we *did* "create" them, while not having the foreknowledge that they'd become troublesome in the future, and we wanted to eliminate them. Well, we could do it humanely, as opposed to, say, drowning them. "God", on the other hand, "created" things that he *did* have the foreknowledge would displease him, and decided that the best way to remedy the problem was to drown them. 'Anyone here ever accidentally inhale water while swimming? 'Not a very pleasant way to go. Couldn't "God" just "think" people out of existence, the same way he presumably thought them into existence???

cl: One city I used to live in wiped out the entire population of beach dwelling squirrels when they were found to be carriers of some virus. We have a euphemism for this, "pest control."

So, in Deuteronomy when believers are instructed to kill those who would lead them away from "the Lord", is there some other euphemism for that? Hopefully it's not "pest control".

cl: I'm willing to bet that most atheists don't judge the pesticide and pest control industries with nearly the same fervor as God is being judged here.

We know that those who control "pests" didn't create those pests. "God" is getting "judged" with a different "fervor" because "God" presumably brought all life into existence, and furthermore, knew, a priori, which "things" would give him trouble. Moreover, a "God" can presumably come up with the most humane way to extinguish a species. In my view, drowing and dashing people against rocks is not that way.

Karla said...

Karla: I thought we agreed that a good King would do something about evil? It seems you think a good God would let evil continue unabated without any severe consequences?

Boom “Do something about it? Karla, letting "evil" *subsist* is about the best example of not doing something about it, I can think of. Especially, if we assume that "God" is actually more powerful than "evil", in which case, "God" could eliminate it.”

God has done something about it. The ability to overcome and to live in a reality that has no evil has been given to us. You know all that stuff Jesus said about the Kingdom of God being at hand and how He came to bring His Kingdom. He didn’t just come to forgive us, but to set us free from living in a reality that evil inhabits. He extends to us His Kingdom which is a reality where evil has ZERO hold and influence. He came to show us how to live from the reality that is all good all the time instead of living from a reality that is opposed to Him and His good Kingdom.

Karla said...

Karla: We see things as good v. bad based on our perception of them. And we don’t see perfectly.

BoomSlang “Another red herring. Just because we don't "see perfectly" doesn't mean that we are completely incapable of "seeing"(determining) for ourselves what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable", in the case that we are given "commands" or "laws".”


How do you know that you have the ability to judge more clearly than God what is good and what is not? How do you know that your emotions and biases do not influence the conclusions of your reasoning?


Boom “So, if you were commanded to dash your enemy's children against rocks, in this case, our opponents in the Middle East, you'd see this as a "perfect" solution, right? If so, then you'd go enlist and take part in it, if your "God" asked you to, right?”

Like I said, things have changed for humanity in that God doesn’t deal with us quite the same way as was necessary in the past.

Karla: Also I would say that man acquired the current way of thinking about good v. bad from the Garden when we took on the knowledge of good and evil.

Boom “But notice, "man" wasn't cognizant of the concept of "good vs bad" *before* he made the infamous decision to act "bad". Moreover, if the alleged first two human prototypes were "created" in "God's image", then they were presumably incapable of acting "bad", or choosing "wrongly", unless of course you are saying that "God" has the propensity to act "bad" and choose "wrongly", too.”

I was going to respond to this, but I am not quite sure what your asking.


BoomSlang “So, it's "Good" to "create evil", then. “

God didn’t create evil. He said clearly that all He created was good. Evil is the absence of good, not a substance that was created. It is a perversion of the good, an abuse of the good, a twisting of the good. It wasn’t created by God, it was made manifest by created beings, not by the Creator.




BoomSlang “We've been over this dozens of times. Those who claim to be "transformed by Christ" are no more impervious to human error than anyone else. There are "good" and "bad" people of all religious and non-religious persuasions. If a "sinless" nature is unachievable by we mortals, then there can never be any objective way to determine if anyone is really "transformed", or not.”


Jesus is that example of the sinless man that we can measure ourselves by.

cl said...

boomSLANG,

"..a "hero" might take a life to prevent the unnecessary harm of the group."

I agree. Would you say such taking of life was immoral?

cl said...

Ali P,

When you told me,

"I think I see what your trying to get at, but it just doesn't 'fit' for me."

What was it you thought I was trying to get at? I'm just checking to see how closely our perceptions match.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: God has done something about it["evil"]. The ability to overcome and to live in a reality that has no evil has been given to us. You know all that stuff Jesus said about the Kingdom of God being at hand and how He came to bring His Kingdom.

I'm sorry, but as I've told you, oh, probably a few dozen times now, the proposed "solution" to over-coming "evil" doesn't address the fact that an all-powerful "God" could just eliminate "evil" in the first place, but for some reason, either, a) chooses *not* to, or b) is unable to. If "a", then personally, I see this supposed god's inaction as "immoral", to say the least. Moreover, if it is "okay" to live without "evil" in the clouds, or in some other remote location, then it should be "okay" for us to live here without "evil", but for some yet-to-be-disclosed "reason", "evil" is necessary here on earth, and it didn't even start here, mind you.

Karla, I'm attempting to get you to put all of this into terms that make it believable, since, this is a part of the reason that I and other nonbelievers are unable to believe it in the first place.

Consider this senario: If I came along and cracked you in the knee-caps with a ball peen hammer, and as a "solution" to your dilemma of lying there in crippling pain, said, "I am here to give you a ride to the emergency room!!!", at some point you would demand to know why I cracked you in the knee-caps to begin with, if your are a sane, normal person. What I'm saying, is that your "God" created(or allows to subsist) the very "problem" it seeks to have us over-come. Again, I don't believe this sort of concept came from an "Infinitely Intelligent" being, but more likely, from the minds of the Bronze-aged bible-redactors.

Karla: How do you know that you have the ability to judge more clearly than God what is good and what is not?

Please explain to me why it is so unreasonable for me to expect a "God" to have a *better* standard of what is "Good", or at least, one that is on par with that of we mortal beings. Why?

boomSLANG said...

Karla continues: How do you know that your emotions and biases do not influence the conclusions of your reasoning?

How do you know that god's emotions and biases do not influence the conclusions of its "reasoning"? I reiterate--if "God" has no external standard for what is "Good", then what you have is essentially this being's opinion. If it is the opinion of "God" that nonbelievers be killed, then why should you, me, or joe-blow take stock in such an opinion, just because this opinion comes from a god?

Like I said, things have changed for humanity in that God doesn’t deal with us quite the same way as was necessary in the past.

So, I take that as a "no". That is, you would disobey a direct command from "God" if he commanded you to dash your enemy's children against rocks, even though this was "acceptable" just a few hundred generations ago, and even though god's authority and the laws based on that authority are supposedly "UNchanging". Please confirm: That was "no", you would *not* obey "God".

Previously, me: "But notice, 'man' wasn't cognizant of the concept of 'good vs bad' *before* he made the infamous decision to act 'bad'."

Response: I was going to respond to this, but I am not quite sure what your asking.

Please be specific as to what you "don't get" about this. "Adam" & Co. obviously didn't have "knowledge of good and evil" *before* making the wrongful decision to gain said "knowledge". It's a very basic chronology flaw.

Karla: God didn’t create evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."[emphasis, mine]

—Isaiah 45:7

boomSLANG said...

me, previously: "..a 'hero' might take a life to prevent the unnecessary harm of the group."

cl: I agree. Would you say such taking of life was immoral?

Depends on what the "threat" to the group was. Also, if the "hero" created or could have prevented the dangerous circumstances to begin with, then no, when it was all said and done, I wouldn't consider him or her a "hero".

Ali P said...

'What was it you thought I was trying to get at? I'm just checking to see how closely our perceptions match.'

Either:
That God knows more than we do, so is always right.

Or:
That God is perfect and always right.

I don't think greater knowledge can make up for genocide and I don't believe a perfect being would need to commit genocide.

cl said...

"Depends on what the "threat" to the group was." (boomSLANG)

What would be an example of a threat that would justify the action as moral, in your opinion?

"I don't think greater knowledge can make up for genocide and I don't believe a perfect being would need to commit genocide." (Ali P)

Why not? Humans use their greater knowledge to identify and eliminate threats in the animal kingdom.

Ali P said...

'Why not? Humans use their greater knowledge to identify and eliminate threats in the animal kingdom.'

Rarely on the level of genocide I imagine, and I don't agree with most 'elimination' either.

DS said...

"Rarely on the level of genocide"

Really? Just because they don't eliminate everyone of them? God didn't eliminate every human being either when he gave his sentence.

boomSLANG said...

cl: What would be an example of a threat that would justify the action[of a "hero"] as moral, in your opinion?

Well, let's say that an under-cover policeman is dining out in a packed restaurant, and an armed thug comes waltzing in and demands the wallets/purses of all the patrons. If the under-cover officer pulled out his service revolver and killed the thug, he would be acting morally, and thus, he could be considered a "hero", of sorts.

For contrast, I'll provide another example, one where the person who "saves the group" would *not* be considered a "hero".

An armed thug enters a packed restaurant and demands the wallets/purses of all the patrons. As he collects the desired items, a stray bullet from a bank robber's gun across the street hits him in the head, killing the thug instantly. Subsequently, this "saves the group" from the original threat. In this case, while the bank robber technically "saved the group" from unnecessary harm, he should *not* be considered a "hero", nor should he be considered "moral". Intent is everything.

Ali: "I don't think greater knowledge can make up for genocide and I don't believe a perfect being would need to commit genocide."

cl: Why not?

To my understanding, a "perfect being" doesn't make mistakes. Moreover, if we are talking about a "perfect being" who is also omniscient, and thus, knows the future set of events, then in my view, said being wouldn't create a situation where it would need to kill anything in the first place.

cl: Humans use their greater knowledge to identify and eliminate threats in the animal kingdom.

That's true. However, "humans" aren't perfect, nor are they omniscient. Additionally, if "humans" create something that they ultimately need to destroy - for instance, scientists in Florida created "love bugs" to eat mosquitos, but the former have become a nuisance, and need to be eradicated - the difference is that humans (can) admit their errors, while a "perfect being", by definition, wouldn't make errors. It certainly wouldn't be "repented" that it did anything, if it was "perfect".

Ali P said...

'Really? Just because they don't eliminate everyone of them? God didn't eliminate every human being either when he gave his sentence.'

He still committed and incited genocide, and I still think it's wrong whoever does it to whom.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "To my understanding, a "perfect being" doesn't make mistakes."

Agreed.

"Moreover, if we are talking about a "perfect being" who is also omniscient, and thus, knows the future set of events, then in my view, said being wouldn't create a situation where it would need to kill anything in the first place."

I agree here too. And I believe He did create a world where no death would ever have to happen. It wasn't He that brought death into the equation.

The thing is you seem to hold God responsible for all actions of humans as if a good God would make humans always do good things and never have any ability to do anything outside of what is good.

I seem to be observing, and I could be wrong, that even atheists seem to expect a God to be perfect and good and since the Bible has stories of God doing things that seems not-good and not-perfect than that is taken as evidence that the reports of God existing cannot be true because the alternative of a less-than-perfect and willfully immoral God cannot be logical and true. Am I summarizing that line of thinking accurately?

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "To my understanding, a 'perfect being' doesn't make mistakes."

Karla: Agreed.

Then I reiterate---a "perfect being" would not create at all, before it would create a situation where there is a propensity for imperfection.

Me, previously: "Moreover, if we are talking about a 'perfect being' who is also omniscient, and thus, knows the future set of events, then in my view, said being wouldn't create a situation where it would need to kill anything in the first place."

Karla: I agree here too. And I believe He did create a world where no death would ever have to happen. It wasn't He that brought death into the equation.

Let's review: "He", according to the bible, said, "[I] create evil". The language is there, and I have no reason to not take it at its face value.

So, if humans are "evil", and subsequently, they deserve "death" and need to be killed, then that is ultimately a situation of biblegod's own making. And once more---if "He" is omniscient, then there are some glaring implications, one of which, is that "He" knew the undesirable outcome, but despite that, "created" *anyway*, when a "perfect" alternative to doing so was/is to not create, thus, leaving said being in its unaltered, unneedy, self-"perfect" state.

Karla: The thing is you seem to hold God responsible for all actions of humans as if a good God would make humans always do good things and never have any ability to do anything outside of what is good.

Let's back up: If, per its "omniscience", "God" knows the future set of events, then the "actions of humans" are predetermined. In other words, our "free will" is an illusion. "Omniscience" and "free will" create a philosophical contradiction.

So, as it stands, you have a mutually incompatible description of a god. If you concede that "God", like us, doesn't know the future, then true, I can't hold said "God" responsible for the "actions of humans". On the other hand, if you insist that said "God" knows the future and can "Prophesy" future events, etc., then I am being reasonable when/if I hold said "God" responsible for the "actions of humans" because of the reasons I've provided herein.

Karla: I seem to be observing, and I could be wrong, that even atheists seem to expect a God to be perfect and good and since the Bible has stories of God doing things that seems not-good and not-perfect than that is taken as evidence that the reports of God existing cannot be true because the alternative of a less-than-perfect and willfully immoral God cannot be logical and true. Am I summarizing that line of thinking accurately?

'Can't speak for other Atheists. For me, true---because the bible depicts its deity as one who is "not-good"/"not-perfect", I am unable to believe that said being exists. This, as well some of the other cornerstone tenets of the Christian philosophy, I find untenable, and yes, it contributes to me being a nonbeliever, although, they are not the only reasons.

Karla said...

BoomSlang, I see your comments, I will get back to you after Christmas. Have a very wonderful Christmas!

DS said...

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. -Isaiah 45:7"

Might you be looking at one side of the story? Your intepretation was taken from the King James Version(KJV). To fully understand what it means, one has to look at more than one version. The word evil came from the word 'Rah'(hebrew). 'Rah' does not necessarily mean evil, and can be interpreted as : adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress, wicked, hurt, harm, and many more.

To be fair, one has to look past just the KJV to gain full understand / proper view of the meaning of that verse.

"The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."(NASB)

"I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things."(God's word Translation)

"I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things."(Bible in Basic English)

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."(NIV)

Isaiah 45:5-7(NIV) -

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other.I from the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

We can see clearly that the text does not refer to moral evil, but to things that people deem evil. Things that refer to harm etc. God uses disasters and such as a form of punishments, but it does not refer to him as morally EVIL

DS said...

More specific information can be found off this link :http://www.carm.org/does-god-create-evil

boomSLANG said...

Ditto!(to Karla)

boomSLANG said...

DS: We can see clearly that the text does not refer to moral evil..

Clearly? It seems to me that if we were seeing the text "clearly", we wouldn't be choosing from such a long list of potential alternatives. But since you offered them all, which "translation" is "clearly" the "One True" interpretation?

God uses disasters and such as a form of punishments..

Even if we substitute any or all of the above translations, "God" is still responsible for the lot of them: "calamity", "disaster", "troubles", "darkness"....take your pick. Moreover, if these are merely "punishments" for "evil", this still doesn't address the fact that said "God" allows the 'thing' for which the punishments were "created" to subsist...i.e.."evil".

...but it[the quoted Isaiah passage] does not refer to him as morally EVIL

I've never stated that the bible refers to "God" as "morally EVIL". I'm saying that if the text is taken at its face value, "God" is responsible for "evil", since the text, at face-value, reads that he created it.

While I can appreciate your attempts to 'soften the blow' by offering various interpretations, I find these types of apologetics unconvincing. I mean, did "Adam" & Co. eat from "the Tree of Good and Disaster"? Of course not. So, "evil" means evil when it suits, but it means something else when it doesn't suit. This is just one more reason that I find the idea that an "Infinitely Intelligent" being would rely on such a flimsy, haphazard method for "revealing" things to humankind, unbelievable.

DS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DS said...

"potential alternatives"?

How deeply mistaken you are. They are not alternatives. They are the very same text, having similar meanings, but apparently, different people may have different ways of interpreting certain texts. Therefore, they have come out with several versions of the bible to better suit those who cannot understand or relate well from the bible. In such cases, without providing alternative ENGLISH words, People would be allowed to misinterpret the bible accidentally, or possibly deliberately (In the case of religious warfare, which I can tell that you are attempting to start just for the sake of arguement).

In regards to ""One True" interpretation" which you claim to seek, it would be in Hebrew. If you could understand it to the last word, that would be a more perfect guide without any language problems since you seem to be facing difficulties with English.

boomSLANG said...

DS: "potential alternatives"?

Yes, alternatives. Since you have made it clear that the KJV, alone, might be insufficient to "fully understand" the intended meaning, there are some *alternatives* that the reader can turn to---as in, other choices, which you even provide.

How deeply mistaken you are

I'm afraid not. Sometimes "alternative" simply means "choice". In that context, no, I'm not "mistaken". In any event, it's revealing to me how you'd choose to lecture me on the various bible-translations, but you've still yet to address the issue at hand.

(In the case of religious warfare, which I can tell that you are attempting to start just for the sake of arguement).

How utterly laughable that you'd accuse me of "religious warefare", which, BTW, amounts to an ad hominem attack. Let's be clear: You don't know my mind, nor if I have a motive, so you really shouldn't pretend to know such things.

FYI, part of Karla's mission statement is to want to understand Atheists/skeptics points of view. From the onset, I've simply been delineating in the clearest terms I know how, why it is that I am unable to believe the Christian philosophy. As I said, no amount of "faith" or "hope" will allow me to *honestly* believe that an omnipotent "God" who is presumably also perfectly "Moral", would create, or if you prefer, *allow* "evil" to subsist. Though you've given it shot, your apologetics are as unconvincing as they are creative.

In regards to "One True" interpretation" which you claim to seek, it would be in Hebrew.

Notice, I didn't ask which language the various interpretations are translated from.

If you could understand [the bible] to the last word, that would be a more perfect guide without any language problems...

Yeah? And which Christian or Christians understand it "to the last word", and moreover, how would those who might make such a claim go about proving this?

...since you seem to be facing difficulties with English.

Ah, yes, one last ad hominem attack. Because your "arguments" have failed to convince me, I, the nonbeliever, *must* be deficient in my own language. Yeah, sure pal.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "FYI, part of Karla's mission statement is to want to understand Atheists/skeptics points of view."

True.

BoomSlang "From the onset, I've simply been delineating in the clearest terms I know how, why it is that I am unable to believe the Christian philosophy."

I appreciate you doing so. And I am still reading and listening to what you have to say.

BoomSlang "As I said, no amount of "faith" or "hope" will allow me to *honestly* believe that an omnipotent "God" who is presumably also perfectly "Moral", would create, or if you prefer, *allow* "evil" to subsist."

There is no refuting that He allows it to exists for a time, a short time, in light of eternity.

I do still challenge that He brought evil into being, if we are taking Scripture at face value. Genesis clearly shows us that 1) Satan and his minions first actualized evil in the spiritual realm and then 2) man stepped out of holy and righteous communion with God into a corrupt reality that is a distortion, a corruption, an aversion of the good reality created by God for us to live to the fullest. Man brought this about. God has allowed man to live with this reality for a while, but He has also provided man with the solution to restoring this reality to goodness once again. He has done all the work for us and given us all that we need to create regain paradise here on this earth.



BoomSlang "Though you've given it shot, your apologetics are as unconvincing as they are creative."

I really am not aiming to give you "apologetics" even though I study that field, I really do not fit that box. Yes, in the full meaning of the word any "giving of a defense" of what I believe is in Greek "apologia" and thus could be "apologetics." But what you will commonly find from those who write apologetics books and have speaking engagements on the topic isn't the same as what I seek to do here. Sometimes I do pull from what I have learned from those circles, but most of the time I am considering the question posed and simply responding without having read any "apologetics" on the topic.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Depends on what the "threat" to the group was. Also, if the "hero" created or could have prevented the dangerous circumstances to begin with, then no, when it was all said and done, I wouldn't consider him or her a "hero"."

Have you ever seen the movie Minority Report? In the movie people were imprisoned for planning to murder someone before the actual crime was committed. Nothing wrong had been done, yet but because the Precogs saw the future where something was going to be done they arrested the person and charged them with the crime.

The thing is God would have had to not create the whole human race to prevent humans from doing anything that outside of goodness. No one would have ever had the chance to live and experience the wonderful good things of life. Instead God, in His infinite wisdom created, allowed man to fall into sin, but also provided man the solution Himself so that man could overcome that sin through Jesus and live an incredible life both now and in eternity. The sin and death and evil in this world is temporary, but eternity is forever and that chance to live in glory being fully who I was created to be along with all the other wonderful people so well crafted with such awesome talents and gifts and personalities is well worth some temporary suffering on this earth. To me living is better than never existing to prevent no evil from ever happening. I am saying this having been on the receiving end of some real evil and yet God is good and He redeems and shines through the sin of this world.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Then I reiterate---a "perfect being" would not create at all, before it would create a situation where there is a propensity for imperfection."


Would you not have a child if that child wasn't going to be perfect? If you knew that child would grow up and break your heart at times, would it be better to never have kids then to have them and all the joys and sorrows of raising them?

BoomSlang "
So, if humans are "evil", and subsequently, they deserve "death" and need to be killed, then that is ultimately a situation of biblegod's own making."


It's not just that sin deserves death, but it is death. It is that harmful to our being because there is no life in it--it is the opposite of life. Life is in God and nothing can change that--He's the only source. Sin is opposite God, it's not in God and there is no life in it. This is very reasonable logic.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: The thing is God would have had to not create the whole human race to prevent humans from doing anything that outside of goodness.

If I recall, you've gone on record to say that "God" isn't needy---he doesn't need anything. If this is a fair assessment, then yes, "God" could have remained in its "Perfect" state if it had not created anything, and thus, presumably remained perfectly content/perfectly satisfied. But again, for some odd reason, "God" chose to create, knowing that its creation would be a disappointment; knowing that he would be repented(remorseful) for creating; knowing that he'd have to DESTROY his creation. None of this sounds "perfect" to me---actually, far, far from it.

Karla: No one would have ever had the chance to live and experience the wonderful good things of life.

Except that I'm fairly certain that you and many of your Xian constituents are the ones who would boast that "life" is only "wonderful" and "good" if you are, as you like to put it, "in Christ". In other words, life is only "good" and worth living if you are a believer.

If that's the case, then we're back to my original objection(s):

If "life" is only "good" and "purposeful" if you are a believer, and if "God" has the foreknowledge that some of its creation will be unable to believe on "faith", which, subsequently, "God" knows that these people's final destination will be "hell", then "God" can, and should, give every single person the evidence that they'd required for belief. That is the "moral" thing to do. We've established long ago in these conversations that believing that "God" exists does not necessarily make people followers/disciples. We are still free agents if we believe.

Moreover, if "God" simply cannot be content unless he "creates", then he can simply not create those whom he knows will not believe, thus, saving them from having a "purposeless" life of "sin"(ending in "hell"). After all, those whom he knows will choose him, still have the illusion of "free will", and evidentally, that's what counts.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Would you not have a child if that child wasn't going to be perfect? If you knew that child would grow up and break your heart at times, would it be better to never have kids then to have them and all the joys and sorrows of raising them?

If, hypothetically, I knew that I'd have no choice but to torture or drown my own child if he or she should "break my heart", then my answer is a definite "no", I would most certainly not have that child. Of course, unlike biblegod, I wouldn't limit myself, to either, a) letting the child live(if it pleases me/loves me), or b) destroying it(if it doesn't please me/doesn't love me). Imagine, I, a fallible, limited being, can conceive of several alternatives to the supposed two choices that biblegod has evidentally imposed upon himself.

Me, previously: "So, if humans are 'evil', and subsequently, they deserve 'death' and need to be killed, then that is ultimately a situation of biblegod's own making."

Karla responds: It's not just that sin deserves death, but it is death. It is that harmful to our being because there is no life in it--it is the opposite of life. Life is in God and nothing can change that--He's the only source. Sin is opposite God, it's not in God and there is no life in it. This is very reasonable logic.

Actually, aside from you having zero objective confirmation for that lengthy paragraph of godspeak(which is begging the question, and ultimately, meaningless to a nonbeliever), you've still failed to address the central issue:

"God" is responsible for creating a race of beings, knowing, a priori, that the vast majority of its "creation" would dissappoint him, thus, leaving him no choice but to kill them, either by drowning, plagues, or some other "calamity"---and if that's not bad enough, seeing to it that they burn in "hell" for all of eternity.

Nope, I'm sorry Karla, it is not "reasonable" to believe that this is the best that a "perfect", "all-powerful", "all-loving" being can do.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “If I recall, you've gone on record to say that "God" isn't needy---he doesn't need anything.”

True.


BoomSlang “If this is a fair assessment, then yes, "God" could have remained in its "Perfect" state if it had not created anything, and thus, presumably remained perfectly content/perfectly satisfied.”

True. He did not need to create us. But He chose to out of His love to create us.


BoomSlang “But again, for some odd reason, "God" chose to create, knowing that its creation would be a disappointment; knowing that he would be repented(remorseful) for creating; knowing that he'd have to DESTROY his creation. None of this sounds "perfect" to me---actually, far, far from it.”

Right now would you rather have never lived than to enjoy the life you live? Or do you find goodness in life and enjoy life and are glad to be living?

You are referring to the Flood I gather. However, you are leaving out an important detail, that God saved a whole family to continue humanity through the blood line of that family. Thus saving humanity from the infected blood line of those humans who had merged with fallen angels. Even the Flood was an act of love for humanity even though some had to be lost for billions to have life untainted by fallen angels. You have to read the whole account there to see why the Flood was necessary and why it grieved God to have to wipe out some in order to save others.


BoomSlang “Except that I'm fairly certain that you and many of your Xian constituents are the ones who would boast that "life" is only "wonderful" and "good" if you are, as you like to put it, "in Christ". In other words, life is only "good" and worth living if you are a believer.”

I can’t say that I advocate that idea. That would be to say everyone else might as well commit suicide. Surely that would be ridiculous. Everyone experiences some good of life in varying degrees and everyone can move closer to the good life.

BoomSlang “If that's the case, then we're back to my original objection(s):

If "life" is only "good" and "purposeful" if you are a believer, and if "God" has the foreknowledge that some of its creation will be unable to believe on "faith", which, subsequently, "God" knows that these people's final destination will be "hell", then "God" can, and should, give every single person the evidence that they'd required for belief.”

I see that He has done so. You may not have encountered what you consider sufficient evidence, but that does not mean that it does not exist. I have encountered it as have millions of other people.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “That is the "moral" thing to do. We've established long ago in these conversations that believing that "God" exists does not necessarily make people followers/disciples. We are still free agents if we believe.”

True. Believing intellectually is a step in the right direction, but there is something more that involves the heart or the depth of your person, beyond just the mind.



BoomSlang “Moreover, if "God" simply cannot be content unless he "creates", then he can simply not create those whom he knows will not believe, thus, saving them from having a "purposeless" life of "sin"(ending in "hell"). After all, those whom he knows will choose him, still have the illusion of "free will", and evidentally, that's what counts.”

We all have purpose of life and meaning to our life. We can walk in that purpose and meaning or we can walk outside of it, but it still exists. You are now even in your unbelief (or non-belief) very meaningful to God and He loves you right now and He has a very grand and wonderful purpose for you. That doesn’t start when you begin to believe, but even now He loves you and you are meaningful to Him and in this earth.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “If, hypothetically, I knew that I'd have no choice but to torture or drown my own child if he or she should "break my heart", then my answer is a definite "no", I would most certainly not have that child.”

That isn’t a penalty of “breaking God’s heart.” It’s the natural result of being infected with sin which is why God provides the cure to the infection we brought on ourselves.


BoomSlang “Of course, unlike biblegod, I wouldn't limit myself, to either, a) letting the child live(if it pleases me/loves me), or b) destroying it(if it doesn't please me/doesn't love me). Imagine, I, a fallible, limited being, can conceive of several alternatives to the supposed two choices that biblegod has evidentally imposed upon himself.”

Again, your summary is not accurate. He’s not punishing us for not pleasing Him or loving Him. Loving Him and being in Him is where the good life is for us and living outside of that is harmful and destructive for us. It is impossible to have life from a source other than the source of life. It simply is illogical and impossible. Just like you can’t get real money from a monopoly bank you can’t get life from anything other than the real source of life. You are asking for something that is impossible.



BoomSlang “Actually, aside from you having zero objective confirmation for that lengthy paragraph of godspeak(which is begging the question, and ultimately, meaningless to a nonbeliever), you've still failed to address the central issue: “

Basically what I said in what you call “godspeak” I said again in other words above. I don’t want to leave this alone, because if I am communicating badly I want to correct that.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: True. He did not need to create us. But He chose to out of His love to create us.

::sigh::

And I reiterate: It is not an act of "love" for a "God", or any other being, to "create" a race of people, when he/she/it KNOWS, a priori, that it will have no choice but to DESTROY the majority of its "creation" because said majority have displeased it; because said majority have not lived up to its expectations.

Karla, the fact that your biblegod is omniscient, and thus, knows the outcome of the future set of events, is a devestating blow to your argument. Now, if you concede that said "God", like you and me, does not have a knowledge of the future? Then fine, I will withdrawl my objection at that time. But until/unless you do so, your apologetic fails to convince me that this the act of "love", that is, unless you want to redefine "love" to mean "cruel", "selfish", and "immoral".

And before you go there---the fact that "God" offers a "solution" is immaterial..repeat--IMMATERIAL, because, once again, per its "omniscience", it knows that not all will believe, despite the "solution". Please actually try to entertain what I'm saying to you, instead of repeating the same flimsy and flawed defenses(apologetics). Will you?

continues...Right now would you rather have never lived than to enjoy the life you live? Or do you find goodness in life and enjoy life and are glad to be living?

If naturalism is true, then no, I would not regret this life at all. On the other hand, if your worldview is true, then I'd have second thoughts, since, according to you and many of your Xian constituents, I, as one who is unable to honestly believe something I find unbelievable(like that is somehow unreasonable), and because of this inability to believe, would be bound straight for "hell". In that sense, I could see how it'd be better to never have been brought into existence. What's 60, 70, 80 good years, if what I have to look forward to is being magically kept alive and incinerated for eternity? No thanks, Karla; no thanks, "God".

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You are referring to the Flood I gather. However, you are leaving out an important detail, that God saved a whole family to continue humanity through the blood line of that family.

Wow!!! "God" saved >>> a <<< "whole family"?!?!?! What an insenstive and despicable thing to say. It's simply astounding that you'd have such a "defense". The biblegod that you worship DESTROYED thousands of your fellow human beings...men, women, children, women carrying child, and even animals, but you're perfectly content because ONE family was "spared". 'Sickening.

Karla: Thus saving humanity from the infected blood line of those humans who had merged with fallen angels.

Let's drown all AIDS patients! Yup, their "blood" is "infected"!

Karla: Even the Flood was an act of love for humanity even though some had to be lost for billions to have life untainted by fallen angels.

Here's a novel idea---instead of eliminating humans, how about eliminate "sin", "evil", "darkness", "calamity", or however-the-%$#& you'd like to classify all the "stuff" that sends "God" into a homicidal tizzy?? If it's A-Okay to live in the clouds without all that stuff, it should be fine to live here without it. But for some odd reason, it's not. Here's the reason, best as I can tell: "God" needs "evil" to make its creation dependent on it. Oh, the irony.

Karal: You have to read the whole account there to see why the Flood was necessary..

Oh? "God", in it's "Infinite Wisdom", a being who can "think" planets and stars into existence, cannot think of a more humane way to eliminate its creation. Seriously? Why can't "God" just snap his fingers and have people expire? Karla, have you ever accidentally inhaled a lung full of water? Yes, or no?

No "loving" being DROWNS people, Karla.

Karla: ...and why it grieved God to have to wipe out some in order to save others.

Yes, it "grieved God"...he was "repented". 'Doesn't exactly sound like he made a "perfect" choice, to me.

Karla: Everyone experiences some good of life in varying degrees and everyone can move closer to the good life.

But those are humanistic principles. What about "good", and "joy" etc., being understood by "thoughts", and naturalist "thoughts", according to you, "aren't really there"? In other words, one minute you speak of humanist principles(above); the next, humanists can't have any principles---everything's "illusion". Can you possibly be consistant?

Karla: I see that He has done so. You may not have encountered what you consider sufficient evidence, but that does not mean that it does not exist. I have encountered it as have millions of other people.

My point was either lost on you, or you are circumventing it(AGAIN). That the "evidence" that "millions" have got is "sufficient" to them, is IMMATERIAL to me. 'Get it?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: True. Believing intellectually is a step in the right direction, but there is something more that involves the heart or the depth of your person, beyond just the mind.

I have a favor to ask---can you please-oh-please stop using the useless, metaphorical, religious jargon, in this case, suggesting that I can ascertain knowledge/information with my "heart"? The best I can tell, is that you are suggesting that I use my "gut instinct", when we have plenty of evidence that when man uses his "gut instinct", he is led astray a great percentage of the time. If "God" exists, he knows PRECISELY what would convince me.

Karla: We all have purpose of life and meaning to our life. We can walk in that purpose and meaning or we can walk outside of it, but it still exists. You are now even in your unbelief (or non-belief) very meaningful to God and He loves you right now and He has a very grand and wonderful purpose for you. That doesn’t start when you begin to believe, but even now He loves you and you are meaningful to Him and in this earth.

If I am so "meaningful to God", Karla, then it can get off its celestial hindquarters and give me the evidence that would convince me of "His" existence. I simply don't buy your "God hides in plain sight"; "God loves you right now"-type soundbites. They are weak, illogical, and only convince the already convinced, ad nauseam.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: That isn’t a penalty of “breaking God’s heart.” It’s the natural result of being infected with sin..[EDIT]

So, "sin" doesn't "break God's heart"? A simple, yes, or no, please.

Karla: ..which is why God provides the cure to the infection we brought on ourselves.

For possibly the hundredth time---you are (dishonestly) repeating a fallacious argument. Did you hear me? Neither you, me, nor ANYONE reading this, took part in the ONE-TIME "wrongful" decision in the infamous "Garden". That ill-fated decision was made by one man(and a possible accomplice), and therefore, to hold all human beings responsible for that decision makes a complete mockery of the concept of "free will".

Again, one more giant dose of illogic, and once more, why I am unable to believe such nonsense.

Karla: Again, your summary is not accurate. He’s not punishing us for not pleasing Him or loving Him.

Assuming I'm "wrong" in my summary, you still haven't addressed/overcome the issue of a "limitless God" only having TWO options. A parent(YOUR analogy) who brings a child into the world doesn't *have* to KILL him or her when/if said child doesn't live up to the parent's expectations.

Karla: Loving Him and being in Him is where the good life is for us and living outside of that is harmful and destructive for us.

Yes, yes, Karla...you've said this, and things similar, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Yet, you STILL have not addressed the issue.

Karla: It is impossible to have life from a source other than the source of life.

Question-begging.

Karla: It simply is illogical and impossible.

It is illogical to believe things that we don't have good reasons to believe. It is not reasonable for me to believe that an "all-powerful", "all-loving", "omniscient" being has no choice but to KILL those of its creation who don't do or believe what said "God" seeks for them to do and believe. Let me try this another way: Is "God" omniscient, or not? Yes, or no?

Karla: Just like you can’t get real money from a monopoly bank you can’t get life from anything other than the real source of life. You are asking for something that is impossible.

No--I'm asking for "evidence", which, surely, you'll concede is possible. And I'm also asking you to put the cornerstone tenets of your chosen religious philosophy into believable/reasonable/logical terms, which, you consistantly fail in doing.

Karla said...

Hey Boom, I see your responses. I don't have time to respond until the new year--though my response wouldn't be anything new at this point. You don't seem to be addressing my statements, but making your own and defeating those. The God I am describing is very different than the one you hear me describing at present I do not know how to overcome that worldview gap. Maybe Quixote or CL will have some time to address them before I get a chance to.


Have a great New Year's everyone.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You don't seem to be addressing my statements..

LOL! That's rich. Thanks for that.

Welp, most, if not just about every one of your "statements", are the regurgitation of the same fallacious, unconvincing apologetics that I've be deconstructing all along. I'm basically over it. Yeah, I know...a real heartbreaker. Then again, the "God" that you worship is presumably "omniscient". And for your information, that is NOT a charge of "my own" making; it's a Christian argument, based on the bible. It would be nice (and honest) if you'd concede this one fact when you come back, although, I can understand why you keep avoiding the issue---that is, biblegod having the foreknowledge of the future set of events, to include, knowing that people like myself would be unable to believe, doesn't look good for "God". I reiterate---omniscience cancels-out "free will", both for "creation" *and* for "Creator". If "God" can "Prophesy" that there'll be nonbelievers, then there has to be nonbelievers; they are actually necessary, or else, "God" didn't have ultimate/absolute knowledge of the future to begin with. 'Basic logic.

Happy New Year!

DS said...

Regarding omniscient, here is one summary that I would use to attempt for you to see.

-God created Humans.
-God knew humans would sin.
-God sent in Jesus so redeem humans of sin.
-God did so because he wants humans to live.
-God's solution was Jesus, knowing that humans would sin.

Here's an analogy.
On the creation and designing of products in a technical studios, it is common to discover errors even before the realization of artifacts. Does that mean that the designer would stop creating them? Of course not. Designers would edit, and edit, making the design reach a perfect state. But even so, some products would never have a perfect state that the designers want achieved.

What would the designers do? Scrap the idea completely? Of course not! The designers would use external parts to ensure that the product would function smoothly, or at least for a long period of time.



Another analogy, electricity has been known as a common cause of household fires. What do people do with it?

By your dictionary, normally we would have to "Hey - electricity causes fire. Let's not use electricity altogether. Afterall it is has does causes death - definitely, it is only where and when."

Apparently people don't do that do they? They create methods which would contain the fire after it breaks out. That's when the fire brigade comes in.

This is done so instead of banning the use of electricity altogether so that we can enjoy the pleasures of our everyday electricity oriented objects like the computer, television, fan, air-conditioner, basically almost everything in your house that make's life comfortable.

We as "intelligent beings" already could come out with this on a small scale everyday life events. It's not like they can't ban the use of electricity, they could! It just won't make life any more comfortable.

Ali P said...

'On the creation and designing of products in a technical studios, it is common to discover errors even before the realization of artifacts. Does that mean that the designer would stop creating them?'

So basically, God isn't perfect. That does explain a lot.

boomSLANG said...

At the risk of inciting religious warfare, I'll make a few comments:

-God created Humans.

Okay.

-God knew humans would sin.

Right.

-God sent in Jesus so redeem humans of sin.

Here's where the argument breaks down:

*Just like "God knew humans would sin", logic tells us that "God" also knew that a significant portion of humans would, a) not be exposed to "Jesus" and this whole plan of "redemption", b) be unable to believe the Christian philosophy on "faith". Both of which senarios garner said humans a sentence of perpetual torture in "hell".

-God did so because he wants humans to live.

He "wants humans to live". Okay, fine.

Option 1:

Then, employing his "omniscience", "God" could have simply chosen to not bring into existence those whom he knew he'd have "no choice" but to banish to "hell"(or if you prefer to 'soften the blow' with a euphemism, "not let them live").

In any case, for "God" to only create those whom he knew would be believers, this would *not* harm these people's "free will"; they'd still retain the illusion of "free will", and if "God" knows the future, that's the best you've got anyway.

Option 2:

"God" could simply let those in group a & b, above, expire..i.e..cease to exist, rather than keep them alive and torture them with fire. Or at least, torture those who are convinced "God" exists, but ultimately reject "God". In other words, instead of treating all nonbelievers the same across the board, have less severe "punishments" for those in group a & b, above. You know, like, a fair justice system?... similar to our own?

That's two options that I, a mere limited, mortal being can conceive, both of which are, IMO, more humane; more "moral" than the one alternative that biblegod can evidentally conceive.

-God's solution was Jesus, knowing that humans would sin.

The entire argument breaks down here*, above.

On the creation and designing of products in a technical studios, it is common to discover errors even before the realization of artifacts.

True.

Does that mean that the designer would stop creating them? Of course not. Designers would edit, and edit, making the design reach a perfect state. But even so, some products would never have a perfect state that the designers want achieved.

True. For instance, auto makers use crash-test dummies instead of real humans to perfect their "creations". Although humans still get injured and even die in automobile accidents, and although auto-makers can predict this, people are not born with a disposition to drive cars--they can simply choose not to drive if they feel the risk is too great. Can anyone "choose" not to be born with the presumable innate disposition to "sin"? No.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Just like "God knew humans would sin", logic tells us that "God" also knew that a significant portion of humans would, a) not be exposed to "Jesus" and this whole plan of "redemption", b) be unable to believe the Christian philosophy on "faith". Both of which senarios garner said humans a sentence of perpetual torture in "hell"."

Regarding a) everyone will be "exposed" to Jesus and have the choice of life with Him

b) I don't see any evidence that anyone is unable or incapable to believe

There may be a time where a person is in that situation, but that doesn't mean that will be the case forever or that a time isn't coming where that will change and they will have full ability to choose life in Christ

boomSLANG said...

Karla: "Regarding a) everyone will be "exposed" to Jesus and have the choice of life with Him

What kind of evidence do you have that you could make such a statement? I'd like evidence, please; not apologetics and 'best guesses'. Do you know for a fact that every square mile of earth has been combed for human inhabitants and that every person from the result of that search, old to young, has had a Christian stick a bible in front of his or her nose? If you claim to know this, I'd like a source please.

Continues...b) I don't see any evidence that anyone is unable or incapable to believe

Then you are as blind as a bat(or as stubborn as an mule) because you have Atheists right in your very midst who have made it clear over and over and over again that they are unable to believe in the Christian biblegod and the Christian philisophy on "faith". There isn't enough "faith" in the universe to facilitate my believing in the cornerstone tenets of the Christian philosophy, and yes, that most definitely includes the way they've been presented here.

Karla: There may be a time where a person is in that situation, but that doesn't mean that will be the case forever..

What do you mean "forever"??? We have limited life-spans, and after that, it's presumably "too late".

Karla: It doesn't mean they won't be in that situation or that a time isn't coming where that will change and they will have full ability to choose life in Christ

A time might come that I actually get what I believe to be credible evidence, and then again, such a time might not come. After all, I/we *know* that some people have DIED Atheist, and thus, these people - your fellow human beings - are presumably being tortured as we speak. You would have to be omniscient to know each and every mind of each and every occupant of "hell", in order to know that these people believed, but ultimately, "rejected" what you are soliciting.

Karla said...

Karla: "Regarding a) everyone will be "exposed" to Jesus and have the choice of life with Him

BoomSlang “What kind of evidence do you have that you could make such a statement? I'd like evidence, please; not apologetics and 'best guesses'. Do you know for a fact that every square mile of earth has been combed for human inhabitants and that every person from the result of that search, old to young, has had a Christian stick a bible in front of his or her nose? If you claim to know this, I'd like a source please.”

As I have said before, people can encounter Christ without ever meeting a Christian or reading a Bible. Also, the Bible tells us that Jesus descended into Hades, otherwise known as Hell, when He died revealing Himself to those in captive there. Hell is an eternal abode, so it can be presumed that He appeared not only to people who went there in time before He was crucified, but all those who would ever go there giving them the opportunity even at that time to find Him. This is a theory and is an extrapolation of what could be that I cannot fully evidence. However, secondly Romans tells us that all of creation testifies to the truth of His reality and Scriptures tell us that people are judged according to their knowledge—what they did with the knowledge they did have of the truth. God isn’t hoping people won’t find Him. In fact, many people who come to know the Lord can look back in retrospect and see the hand of God in their lives all the way back when they didn’t think He was there.


Continues...b) I don't see any evidence that anyone is unable or incapable to believe

BoomSlang “Then you are as blind as a bat(or as stubborn as an mule) because you have Atheists right in your very midst who have made it clear over and over and over again that they are unable to believe in the Christian biblegod and the Christian philisophy on "faith".”

Yes, at this time. But I cannot know that that will continue to be the case in the future.

BoomSlang “There isn't enough "faith" in the universe to facilitate my believing in the cornerstone tenets of the Christian philosophy, and yes, that most definitely includes the way they've been presented here.”

Okay. I understand that is where you are at now. That could change, neither of us know your future.

Karla: There may be a time where a person is in that situation, but that doesn't mean that will be the case forever..

BoomSlang “What do you mean "forever"??? We have limited life-spans, and after that, it's presumably "too late".”

Tomorrow or 5 or 10 years from now you could have the evidence you lack now. You could have an encounter with Christ that changes everything.

Karla: It doesn't mean they won't be in that situation or that a time isn't coming where that will change and they will have full ability to choose life in Christ

Karla said...

BoomSlang “A time might come that I actually get what I believe to be credible evidence, and then again, such a time might not come.”

But your argument was that God is unjust to allow people to never have the ability to know Him. My response is that we all have the ability, even if that feels or is temporarily improbable or impossible. Your response is that you do not currently have it, but you cannot know what you may have later.

BoomSlang “ After all, I/we *know* that some people have DIED Atheist, and thus, these people - your fellow human beings - are presumably being tortured as we speak. You would have to be omniscient to know each and every mind of each and every occupant of "hell", in order to know that these people believed, but ultimately, "rejected" what you are soliciting.”

I certainly don’t know the hearts of others and where they stand with God. However, I believe that people can have full evidence of the reality of Christ and choose to reject life in Christ. Satan and his demons have full knowledge of who Jesus is and they choose evil instead of life. Some will never choose life and God says to them, your will be done.

Lastly, I trust in the goodness of God and His justness. And really all of this boils down to He is good and He is trustworthy and He does not want any to perish.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: As I have said before, people can encounter Christ without ever meeting a Christian or reading a Bible.

And I'm saying---"can" encounter, and will encounter, are two entirely different propositions. You'd have to be omniscient to make the latter claim. Let the record show that you aren't omniscient(like we need to point that out, yet, evidentally, we do need to point it out)

Also, the Bible tells us that Jesus descended into Hades, otherwise known as Hell, when He died revealing Himself to those in captive there.

Oh, so "Hell" isn't just the "absence of God", as argued here before; it is a literal place..i.e.."Hades". Thanks for finally clearing that up. So now, when Atheists speak of "Hell", you don't have to equivocate or side-step the issue.

Hell is an eternal abode, so it can be presumed that He appeared not only to people who went there in time before He was crucified, but all those who would ever go there giving them the opportunity even at that time to find Him.

I see, so, "He" will make a special guest appearance and actually apear to people once they are roasting away, but not before hand. 'Not a very proactive guy, is he?

This is a theory and is an extrapolation of what could be that I cannot fully evidence.

Did I miss something? Is there a part of it that you *can* "fully evidence"???

However, secondly Romans tells us that all of creation testifies to the truth of His reality and Scriptures tell us that people are judged according to their knowledge—what they did with the knowledge they did have of the truth.

I don't have the "knowledge" that any invisible, conscious beings exist....at least, not enough to enable me to *honestly* believe that they do. Notwithstanding, by definition, I am still an Atheist, and from my understanding, there are no Atheists, of any kind, in "Heaven". As you've pointed out numerous times, there's only *one* alternative to "heaven". In other words, I don't care what "Romans tells us. "God" knew the end result. The end.

..God isn’t hoping people won’t find Him.

No one has argued that "God" *is* "hoping" that.

And BTW, for what seems like the billionth time---WHY in tarnation does "God" make us "FIND HIM"[capitalization, mine], when we have established over and over and over, ad nauseam, that his appearing DOES. NOT. HARM. OUR. FREE. WILL?!?!?!. Karla, I can *still* choose whether or not I want to get down on my knees and worship this "God", whether he appears to me right here; right now, or whether he appears to me in "Hades".

boomSLANG said...

Karal: In fact, many people who come to know the Lord can look back in retrospect and see the hand of God in their lives all the way back when they didn’t think He was there.

Guess what? It works the other way around, too---people who once *believed* that an invisible man in the clouds was actually listening to their "prayers", and answering (sometimes), now know that they were deluding themselves. You can know this *too*, once you figure out that good and bad things happen to PEOPLE OF ALL RELIGIOUS and non-religious persuasions. I can "pray" right now, and "see" the "hand of Gumby" working in my favor, if I just wait long enough for something good to happen, because after all, something "good" inevitably *will* happen!

Some people I know will get sick and get better; others will get sick and die. I might get a salary increase; I might not. It may rain, thus, saving my garden..then again, it might not rain, and my garden dies. It's called reality, Karla. Calling it "God's will" just adds extra, unnecessary baggage. Believing that "God" is manipulating the laws of nature for lil' ol' you is selfish, especially considering that thousands who are less fortunate than you die daily because they do *not* see "the hand of God in their lives".

Me, previously: “Then you are as blind as a bat(or as stubborn as a mule) because you have Atheists right in your very midst who have made it clear over and over and over again that they are unable to believe in the Christian biblegod and the Christian philisophy on 'faith'.”

You respond: Yes, at this time. But I cannot know that that will continue to be the case in the future.

And you cannot know that it won't continue, either. In any event, you are being dishonest when/if you say things like, "everyone will be 'exposed' to Jesus..", when the implication is that Karla knows that everyone will have adaquate evidence with which to honestly believe. The best you can do is say that we *might* be exposed, and for those who are exposed, he or she might believe---depending on which people are presedestined to believe. Yes, you heard me---predestined. Remember, if "God" knows the future set of events, then our "free will" is illusion at best; a lie at worst.

Moreover, this applies to "God", as well. If, for instance, "God" knows he will grant me the "faith" or "evidence" with which to believe on such-n-such a date in the future, then not even "God" can change its mind, because if it could change its mind, it didn't have absolute knowledge of its future choice to begin with. Please tell me you see the philosophical conundrum here. Yes?

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: “What do you mean 'forever'??? We have limited life-spans, and after that, it's presumably 'too late'.”

Karla responds: Tomorrow or 5 or 10 years from now you could have the evidence you lack now.

Except that "Tomorrow or 5 or 10 years from now" is STILL within my estimated life-span. You said, "forever", which implies an open-ended time-span, when there isn't one.

You could have an encounter with Christ that changes everything.

Perhaps, but I am speaking about right now. In any event, only "God", not "Karla", knows if I will have such an encounter(assuming such a being exists). If your world-view is correct, then for the time being, my free will is an illusion as I sit here biding my time waiting to do what "God" already knows I will/will not do. I arrive at this conclusion because, again, your world-view is one that includes a "God" who is omniscient. If it's not obvious to you yet, this crushes your argument.

But your argument was that God is unjust to allow people to never have the ability to know Him.

What's this?.."allow" people to "never have the ability to know Him", as if people don't want the ability? Again, you are making assumptions, and no, that is *not* my argument. My argument is that "God" is "unjust" because "God" knew, a priori, that some of its "creation"(by the looks of things, most) will be nonbelievers--whether it be because they hadn't heard of(or "encountered") "Him"; or whether it be because they are unable to honestly believe "He" exists, on "faith". Again, both of which groups of people are destined to eternal life in "Hades", and "God" knew this before "creating" them.

Now, I'll attempt this once more: Your "God" could have created only those whom "He" *knew* would believe, and I contend that this would be the "moral" thing to do, because it would prevent non-believers from being inhumanely tortured with fire for eternity, while at the same time, not harming the "free will" of those who believe, because, again, those who believe(d) still retain(ed) the illusion of "free will". If there's something that you don't understand about this, let me know. If you refuse to understand it, then I can't help you.

I certainly don’t know the hearts of others and where they stand with God.

Then stop making statements that allude to you having this type of knowledge.

However, I believe that people can have full evidence of the reality of Christ and choose to reject life in Christ.

For crying out loud, yes!.. people "can" (think that they) have such "evidence", in which case, they can believe in "Christ", and *if* they do, they can "reject life in Christ"(or minus the godspeak, they can "reject Christ"). I've never argued differently!

You have simply described one type of non-Christian. Not ALL non-Christians are non-Christian for the same reasons, however. You can't grasp this point for some reason.

Satan and his demons have full knowledge of who Jesus is and they choose evil instead of life.

And "God" had "full knowledge" that this would happen!

Some will never choose life and God says to them, your will be done.

As I pointed out, above, some may believe in "God", but yet, reject its laws/policies/morality, etc. As it stands, however, I am rejecting the bible >> redactor's << laws/policies/morality, because I don't see any credible evidence that said book was written, or even inspired, by any "Perfect" being, aka "God". In fact, the bible has "man" and his imperfections written all over it.

DS said...

Romans 1:20

"20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"

boomSLANG said...

Petitio Principii. I have a reason for not being convinced by such arguments; not an "excuse".

DS said...

The passage means to say that in judgement, you cannot use the fact that you have reasons not to believe as an excuse of not knowing God.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Oh, so "Hell" isn't just the "absence of God", as argued here before; it is a literal place..i.e.."Hades". Thanks for finally clearing that up. So now, when Atheists speak of "Hell", you don't have to equivocate or side-step the issue.”

I never said it wasn’t a place. It is a place where God has removed His Life and Presence. I would also say that it is both a spiritual condition and a place.

BoomSlang “I see, so, "He" will make a special guest appearance and actually apear to people once they are roasting away, but not before hand. 'Not a very proactive guy, is he?”

My point is that every possible opportunity is given.


BoomSlang “Did I miss something? Is there a part of it that you *can* "fully evidence"???”

Scripture tells us that Jesus visited Hades. The rest of what I said is theory.


BoomSlang “I don't have the "knowledge" that any invisible, conscious beings exist....at least, not enough to enable me to *honestly* believe that they do. Notwithstanding, by definition, I am still an Atheist, and from my understanding, there are no Atheists, of any kind, in "Heaven". As you've pointed out numerous times, there's only *one* alternative to "heaven". In other words, I don't care what "Romans tells us. "God" knew the end result. The end.”

You did at one point think there was a God, correct? And not just any God, but the Judeo-Christian God, correct? Something apparently existed to give rise to that previous belief. . .


BoomSlang “And BTW, for what seems like the billionth time---WHY in tarnation does "God" make us "FIND HIM"[capitalization, mine], when we have established over and over and over, ad nauseam, that his appearing DOES. NOT. HARM. OUR. FREE. WILL?!?!?!.”

It is good for us to seek Him, to humble our will to seek His. All that He does is good and right and just. It does something in us to position ourselves to seek Him and on top of that He enables us to seek Him for His Spirit draws us to Himself enough to allow us to seek Him, but not enough to remove our will and our choice.


BoomSlang “ Karla, I can *still* choose whether or not I want to get down on my knees and worship this "God", whether he appears to me right here; right now, or whether he appears to me in "Hades".”

Yep. I am praying that He does reveal Himself to you in a way that you know that it is truly Him.

boomSLANG said...

The passage means to say that in judgement, you cannot use the fact that you have reasons not to believe as an excuse of not knowing God.

And my previous passage means to say that using something as its own source, is a circular argument, in this case, begging the question. If Lewis Carroll included a passage that similarly said, "Those who don't believe have no excuse!", at the end of "Jabberwocky", would that somehow make the content of "Jabberwocky" more believable?

As far as "knowing God", I would obviously have to believe said "God" exists in order to entertain the notion that I could actually "know" this "God". And as I've said before, I'm certainly not going to lie and claim to believe in something that I don't believe exists. If a "God" exists and it had any integrity, whatsoever, I'm willing to wager my "eternal soul" that it wouldn't want me to lie about believing him/her/it.

Speaking of my "eternal soul", this is all really beside the point, because, if, for sake of argument, the Christian philosophy is the "Truth" that it claims to be, then I reiterate: The "God" in question had the foreknowledge that not all would believe, despite the "disclaimer" that "God" supposedly included in "His Word".

Karla said...

Karal: In fact, many people who come to know the Lord can look back in retrospect and see the hand of God in their lives all the way back when they didn’t think He was there.

BoomSlang “Guess what? It works the other way around, too---people who once *believed* that an invisible man in the clouds was actually listening to their "prayers", and answering (sometimes), now know that they were deluding themselves.”

I can see how you would have that perspective. We are each looking through the lens of our respective worldview.

BoomSlang “You can know this *too*, once you figure out that good and bad things happen to PEOPLE OF ALL RELIGIOUS and non-religious persuasions.”

Yes that is true. I never argued differently. We all live in a world where sin and evil affect us whether we are “religious” or not.

BoomSlang “Karla. Calling it "God's will" just adds extra, unnecessary baggage. Believing that "God" is manipulating the laws of nature for lil' ol' you is selfish, especially considering that thousands who are less fortunate than you die daily because they do *not* see "the hand of God in their lives".”


I don’t think everything that happens good and bad is God’s will. I’m not a fatalist. When I said you could look back and see God’s hand, I didn’t mean attributing all such things in your life to Him.

Karla said...

True, DS, God is just and "lack of knowledge" isn't going to work, because He has given us sufficient ability to know the truth and provided evidence.

This whole argument falls apart if we start with the understanding of God's goodness. If He doesn't exist then such discussion is meaningless, but if He does then He is good and such discussion becomes unnecessary. I continue to engage in the discussion only because we haven't agreed upon the premise that a good God exist. However, that would be the thing to concern ourselves with first for all the rest will easily fall into place or out of place after establishing the truth or falsity of that first premise.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Speaking of my "eternal soul", this is all really beside the point, because, if, for sake of argument, the Christian philosophy is the "Truth" that it claims to be, then I reiterate: The "God" in question had the foreknowledge that not all would believe, despite the "disclaimer" that "God" supposedly included in "His Word"."


Question for you. Do you believe that everyone would believe if there was sufficient evidence? Do you think that unbelief is only a matter of knowledge and not of any other factor?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: True, DS, God is just and "lack of knowledge" isn't going to work, because He has given us sufficient ability to know the truth and provided evidence.

Karla, establishing that someone's "ability" is "sufficient" to know certain information doesn't necessarily mean that all people consider what Karla and DS believe to constitute "the Truth", as "evidence" that is "sufficient" for believing that it *is* "the Truth".

I repeat: In order for YOU to know what is "sufficient" to each individual, you would have to either, BE that individual, or know the mind of that individual. Yes, you get to judge/determine for yourself what "evidence" there is and if it is "sufficient" for belief. But guess what?....you don't get to judge/determine for OTHER people what contitutes "evidence", and if it is "sufficient" for them to believe. Please concede this point so that we don't have to keep going over the same ground again, and again, and again.

Karla: This whole argument falls apart if we start with the understanding of God's goodness.

More circular reasoning??? Even a minimal amount of common sense says that in order understand "God's goodness", I'd have to first *believe* that said "goodness" is the result of "God", in which case, I'd need to first believe in "God".

So, to the contrary---it is your "argument" that falls apart, because you implicitly ask nonbelievers to believe, in order to see that your argument is "true".

Karla: If He doesn't exist then such discussion is meaningless, but if He does then He is good...

Another fallacious argument. Just because a deity exists, does *not* necessarily mean it is "good", *unless* you are saying that "goodness" is intrinsic to its nature, in which case, said deity could command ANY D*MNED THING IT WANTED, like, say, dashing children against rocks, keeping slaves, slaughtering entire races of people, throwing rocks at rebellious teens---in other words, things that *we* as an evolved, educated, civilized society have determined are not "good", and you, the one who is arguing in favor of this deity, would have have to see those things as "moral" acts. Then again, you're the one who is perfectly content that your biblegod drown the entire planet, with the exception of captain Noah and his family.

Karla: I continue to engage in the discussion only because we haven't agreed upon the premise that a good God exist.

We haven't agreed that *any* "God" exists. But if the deity described in the Christian actually exists, it is not by any of stretch of the imagination a "moral" being, unless we redefine "moral" to mean something like, "anything that Yahweh commands, regardless of if it causes harm to humanity."

Karla: However, that would be the thing to concern ourselves with first for all the rest will easily fall into place or out of place after establishing the truth or falsity of that first premise.

Okay, then kindly offer your testible/repeatable/falsifiable evidence for the existence of this "God", and then everything will "fall into place", right? And I take it, by "fall into place", "God" will finally destroy his antagonist, "Satan", yes?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I never said it["Hell"] wasn’t a place.

You've spoken of it conceptually, though, and I'm paraphrasing based on memory: "Living in Darkness", "Absence of God", "Without Life", etc., etc. Furthermore, you've attempted to avoid the issue, altogether, giving your admission that the whole idea makes you uncomfortable.(which is a good reason to denounce the "God" who enforces such a barbaric idea)

Me, previously: "I see, so, 'He' will make a special guest appearance and actually apear to people once they are roasting away, but not before hand. 'Not a very proactive guy, is he?"

You "answer", with: My point is that every possible opportunity is given.

Was that a "yes", or a "no"?

And again, in order for you, Karla, to know each and every "opportunity" that has arisen for each and every individual, past and present, you WOULD HAVE TO BE OMNISCIENT, and/or, know the mind of this "God". You've previously conceded that "faith", itself, comes from "God". But more importantly, if "God" has a foreknowledge of the future set of events, and in turn, "Prophesies" that some will NOT have enough "faith", then who are you to second-guess the mind of "God"?

Again, "omniscience" cripples your arguments(s). There *is* no apologetic for this, lest you concede that "God", like you and me, doesn't know the future.

Previously, I asked: "Did I miss something? Is there a part of it that you *can* 'fully evidence'???"

Karla responds: Scripture tells us that Jesus visited Hades. The rest of what I said is theory.

It's all "theory"(the speculative type). "Scripture" is not evidence of anything, unless we are to accept "The Book of Mormon", "Holy Q'ran", and "Dianetics" as "evidence" for their respective "Truths".

Notwithstanding, for sake of argument, "Jesus" is evidentally capable of being in the presence of "sin"/"evil", when it's been argued that he cannot.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You did at one point think there was a God, correct?

Yes.

Karla: And not just any God, but the Judeo-Christian God, correct?

Yes.

Karla: Something apparently existed to give rise to that previous belief. . .

Yes, many things existed, and still do exist, that gave rise to my believing. My family, who indoctrinated me(brainwashed me) as youngster into believing it was true, "existed". My preacher "existed". My bible "existed". Nature, which I previously attributed to "God", "existed". And of course, my belief that it was all true, "existed". But guess what? I changed my mind once I independently exmamined everything that I was told to be "true", and now that belief no longer exists. Part of that examination was reading the bible for myself, as opposed to listening to my preacher pick out the "gems" and tell me what they mean.

Karla: It is good for us to seek Him, to humble our will to seek His.

Unless he knows, in advance, that I won't find "Him". At that point, it's a waste of my time.

All that He does is good and right and just.

::sigh::

No it isn't, unless you're prepared to redefine "good", "right", and "just". Let's be sure, though:

If Yahweh asked you to KILL your own child to prove your devotion/subservience to "Him", would you do it? Oh, wait, nevermind...of course you wouldn't do it. So the question is, why wouldn't you do it?? Would you also disobey a direct command from Yahweh to KILL any person who would lead you away from "the LORD"??? If so, why? I look forward to your answers and reasoning for both.

Karla: I am praying that He does reveal Himself to you in a way that you know that it is truly Him.

When you say that you are going to be "praying" for me, there are some note-worthy implications:

1) It implies that "God" doesn't already know, a) that I'm in need of "saving", and b) what evidence it would take to convince me.

2) It implies that "God" can change what he presumably already knows he's not going to change, and if he can change it, then he didn't know his ultimate choice to begin with.

Regarding 2, I'll attempt this yet one more time:

Karla, if "God" is "omniscient", then this puts limits on what he can, and cannot, do. "God" either knows the future, or he does not know it. If the former is true, then "God" cannot change his mind and give me what he *already* knows he's NOT going to give me, if he already knows that I will be a nonbeliever. 'Get it? Well? Do you understand the philosophical dilemma this presents? No amount of divine begging on your part will help the situation, unless you concede that "God" is not "omniscient".

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I can see how you would have that perspective. We are each looking through the lens of our respective worldview.

Except that I was a believer for two-thirds of my life.

Aside from being born a passive nonbeliever, when were you ever actively an Atheist?

Me, previously: "You can know this *too*, once you figure out that good and bad things happen to PEOPLE OF ALL RELIGIOUS and non-religious persuasions."

You respond: Yes that is true. I never argued differently.

You are arguing differently when you attribute nature events to supernatural events, as you do here...

"We all live in a world where sin and evil affect us whether we are 'religious' or not." ~ Karla

There is plenty of evidence that adversity "affects us". However, there is zero objective confirmation that this is a result of "sin".

Karla: Do you believe that everyone would believe if there was sufficient evidence? Do you think that unbelief is only a matter of knowledge and not of any other factor?

What is "sufficient" is in the eye of the beholder..i.e.. subjective, as I tried to point out to you in a previous response today. As for "unbelief", I think that implies the willful act of not believing, as opposed to nonbelief, which is not harboring a belief.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "And again, in order for you, Karla, to know each and every "opportunity" that has arisen for each and every individual, past and present, you WOULD HAVE TO BE OMNISCIENT, and/or, know the mind of this "God"."

I don't have to be omniscient, I say it from a place of trusting God and what He says, not from having my own omniscient knowledge.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I don't have to be omniscient, I say it from a place of trusting God and what He says, not from having my own omniscient knowledge.

I can approach this a couple of different ways. One, I could say that just because you "trust" that someone or something else has unlimited knowledge, that this doesn't necessarily mean that you also have unlimited knowledge. Or, similarly, just because you trust that someone or something has all the power in the universe, doesn't necessarily mean that you have access to this power.

But I won't take that route. I'll give benefit of doubt, and concede that because you "trust" that your biblegod exists, and that "He" is "omniscient", that it is so. Fine.

Omniscient: adjective.

1. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

ref: American Heritage

Granting that the Christian biblegod is "omniscient", and by definition, it knows the outcome of the future set of events, we can then conclude that, despite your insistance that this "God" has given everyone "evidence" that is "sufficient" for belief, said "God" still knew, a priori, that not all would believe. This is evidenced when we see that it was "Prophesied" that there'd be those who wouldn't believe. But yet, "God" created these nonbelievers anyway, knowing fully well that these nonbeliever's final destination would be eternal torture in "Hades".

Again, not "moral"; not worthty of my worship. Your argument fails, and your "God" should be denounced(if it actually existed)

Karla said...

Boom, regarding "omniscient", to clarify I was never saying I had all knowledge or that God's omniscience gives me any omniscience. I was merely stating that I trust that He speaks truly in Romans 1:20 which DS quoted.

Also His knowing people won't come to life in Him doesn't negate that sufficient evidence is there for all to see. It means something else is at work other than ignorance.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Karla, establishing that someone's "ability" is "sufficient" to know certain information doesn't necessarily mean that all people consider what Karla and DS believe to constitute "the Truth", as "evidence" that is "sufficient" for believing that it *is* "the Truth".”

You seem to be arguing that if sufficient knowledge was there for all to know then all would certainly believe. Since all do not believe, sufficient evidence is not there.

If this is your argument, I disagree with the first premise that all would believe if evidence were sufficient.

BoomSlang “I repeat: In order for YOU to know what is "sufficient" to each individual, you would have to either, BE that individual, or know the mind of that individual. Yes, you get to judge/determine for yourself what "evidence" there is and if it is "sufficient" for belief. But guess what?....you don't get to judge/determine for OTHER people what contitutes "evidence", and if it is "sufficient" for them to believe. Please concede this point so that we don't have to keep going over the same ground again, and again, and again.”

No I don’t get to judge what is sufficient for other people. I’m not doing that.


Karla: This whole argument falls apart if we start with the understanding of God's goodness.

BoomSlang “More circular reasoning??? Even a minimal amount of common sense says that in order understand "God's goodness", I'd have to first *believe* that said "goodness" is the result of "God", in which case, I'd need to first believe in "God".”

Yes. But we are debating presuming God exists. All I was saying is that really discussion of hell is secondary to whether or not God really does exist and really does have the authority to judge the world.

Boom “So, to the contrary---it is your "argument" that falls apart, because you implicitly ask nonbelievers to believe, in order to see that your argument is "true". “

I wasn’t asking for that.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Another fallacious argument. Just because a deity exists, does *not* necessarily mean it is "good", *unless* you are saying that "goodness" is intrinsic to its nature,”

Yes, I am saying “good” is intrinsic to God’s nature. It has to be rooted somewhere perfect for there to be such a thing as good. And if God is that eternal being from which creation was birthed then He is that good Being.


BoomSlang “ We haven't agreed that *any* "God" exists. But if the deity described in the Christian actually exists, it is not by any of stretch of the imagination a "moral" being, unless we redefine "moral" to mean something like, "anything that Yahweh commands, regardless of if it causes harm to humanity."”

I know that’s what you believe.

Karla said...

Boom, I see in my e-mail that I haven't yet responded to about 5 of your comments from before the holidays that I told you I would get back to. I think we have gone over those same topics since those comments, but if you want me to back track and give a response to them I will. Otherwise we can keep moving forward from here. I'm pretty swamped lately and have had little time to keep up with comments the way I want to. Please let me know if you want me to be sure to take time to go back to the older comments and I will do that for you.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I was merely stating that I trust that He speaks truly in Romans 1:20 which DS quoted.

I'm glad that you trust it, and that you are content using the bible as its own source. On the other hand, if you offer to me that "Romans 1:20" is "evidence" that every human being, old-to-young, has been given "evidence" that is "sufficient" for belief, "no excuses", then you, like DS, are guilty of using a fallacious (circular) argument.

Karla: Also His knowing people won't [believe] in Him doesn't negate that sufficient evidence is there for all to see. It means something else is at work other than ignorance.

I took the liberty of using the word "believe" in lieu of your metaphorical godspeak, "come to life in Him". 'Hope you don't mind. Again, such language is meaningless to me.

In any event, your argument continues to be lacking, despite your numerous revisions.

I'm assuming until/unless I hear otherwise that when you say "something else is at work", that you mean "evil spirits".

If "evil" is "at work" clouding the nonbeliever's vision so that he or she can't find this supposed "sufficient" evidence for "God", then how exactly is this "God", a being who, a) knew that "evil" would interfere with its "Will" from the onset, and b) won't destroy said "evil", not ultimately responsible? Please explain it in terms that make sense, bearing in mind that this "God" knew, a priori, the future set of events, including that his "Will" would not get met(thus, making him imperfect).

Me, previously: "Karla, establishing that someone's 'ability' is 'sufficient' to know certain information doesn't necessarily mean that all people consider what Karla and DS believe to constitute 'the Truth', as 'evidence' that is 'sufficient' for believing that it *is* 'the Truth'."

You respond...You seem to be arguing that if sufficient knowledge was there for all to know then all would certainly believe. Since all do not believe, sufficient evidence is not there.

Then...

If this is your argument, I disagree with the first premise that all would believe if evidence were sufficient.

You will never understand my argument until you understand that what is "sufficient" to each individual is subjective. If two invividuals were walking along, and one individual said, "Hey!..look at the beautiful trees!!!" He or she could say that they find that "trees" are "sufficient" evidence to believe in "God". On the other hand, the other individual may say, "Gee, I don't know....trees are just a result of nature".

Since we cannot witness "God" spontaneously create anything, then hypothesizing on where all of existence came from, including "trees", requires inductive reasoning. So, on what grounds would the first person be able to say what is or isn't "sufficient" evidence to the next person? How can you tell me, if we both look at one type of "evidence", that it is "sufficient" for my believing it, just because *you* believe it is "sufficient"???

boomSLANG said...

Karla: No I don’t get to judge what is sufficient for other people. I’m not doing that.

Yes, you most certainly are doing that. You do it here.....

"Also His knowing people won't come to life in Him doesn't negate that sufficient evidence is there for all to see." ~ Karla[bold added]

If you claim to know what is "sufficient evidence" for >> "all" <<, then the implication is that you claim to know what is "sufficient" for other people.

Karla: But we are debating presuming ["Yahweh"] exists. All I was saying is that really discussion of hell is secondary to whether or not ["Yahweh"] really does exist and really does have the authority to judge the world.

If we're "debating" under the pretense that your biblegod exists(which, I agree we are), then how do you say so-and-so is "secondary to whether or not God really does exist"?[bold mine] Can you show some consistancy?

As for "Hell"--we've been over this. It's in the forefront because, as I've said over and over and over again, any "God" who had the foreknowledge that most of humanity would be destined to "Hell", but created those people anyway, is an immoral being, and should be denounced. On the other hand, since I find the whole concept not worthy of my belief, I should think that you'd want "Hell" a topic of discussion, since the whole idea prevents people like me from being able to believe. I can't make it any clearer.

Karla: Yes, I am saying “good” is intrinsic to God’s nature. It has to be rooted somewhere perfect for there to be such a thing as good.

Fine; then if "good" cannot/does not exist outside of "God", then "God" obviously does *not* have an external standard to which it needs to refer, in which case, when "God" says something is "good", IT IS MERELY ITS OPINION.

Thus, as I've said over and over and over again, such a "God" could command ANYTHING it wanted, and you, the Theist, would have no choice but to see it as "Good". It could order you to enlist in the army, and go dash your enemy's children against ROCKS. And once you bloody up some children, it could then ask you to feel "blessed" to be able to do it, no less. Disgusting.

Which reminds me, you didn't tell me why you would disobey a direct command from "God" to kill your own child. If "God" said that this is "Good", then it *must* be "Good", according to your philosophy. Anyhow, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part. So feel free to elaborate.

Karla: And if God is that eternal being from which creation was birthed then He is that good Being.

"Eternal being", or not---if this "God" created, knowing all of the problems, both for "God", and for its "creation", in advance, then this "God" should be denounced.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "... if the deity described in the Christian actually exists, it is not by any of stretch of the imagination a 'moral' being, unless we redefine 'moral' to mean something like, 'anything that Yahweh commands, regardless of if it causes harm to humanity'."

Karla: I know that’s what you believe.

So, let's be clear---was that a "yes", you want to redefine "moral" to mean "whatever God commands", since we have your full admission that "Good" cannot/does not exist outside of "God"? You can't have it both ways, Karla. Either "Good" can exist independently of "God", or it can't. If you've been paying attention, you know the implications for each senario.

Karla: I see in my e-mail that I haven't yet responded to about 5 of your comments from before the holidays that I told you I would get back to. I think we have gone over those same topics since those comments, but if you want me to back track and give a response to them I will. Otherwise we can keep moving forward from here.

Nah, no need to go backward, despite it doesn't appear we're going forward, either. I mean, how can we go forward when you will not own-up to your errors in thinking?(rhetorically asked)

Karla said...

BoomSlang “I'm glad that you trust it, and that you are content using the bible as its own source. On the other hand, if you offer to me that "Romans 1:20" is "evidence" that every human being, old-to-young, has been given "evidence" that is "sufficient" for belief, "no excuses", then you, like DS, are guilty of using a fallacious (circular) argument.”

I’m not offering it as evidence. However, are you not appealing to the Bible to validate your argument of God committing genocide?


BoomSlang “I'm assuming until/unless I hear otherwise that when you say "something else is at work", that you mean "evil spirits". “

No, I was thinking more of our own hearts and selfish desires that often chose our way over truth and righteousness despite our knowledge of the truth.


BoomSlang “You will never understand my argument until you understand that what is "sufficient" to each individual is subjective.”


Yes what constitutes sufficient evidence would be different for each person.


BoomSlang “So, on what grounds would the first person be able to say what is or isn't "sufficient" evidence to the next person? How can you tell me, if we both look at one type of "evidence", that it is "sufficient" for my believing it, just because *you* believe it is "sufficient"???”

I do not tell you what constitutes “sufficient” for you. I only was agreeing with God that He has provided it, whether you have seen it yet or not, I cannot know. I do take your word that you have not yet had seen or experienced sufficient evidence.

Karla said...

Boom, previously: "... if the deity described in the Christian actually exists, it is not by any of stretch of the imagination a 'moral' being, unless we redefine 'moral' to mean something like, 'anything that Yahweh commands, regardless of if it causes harm to humanity'."

Karla: I know that’s what you believe.

Boom “So, let's be clear---was that a "yes", you want to redefine "moral" to mean "whatever God commands", since we have your full admission that "Good" cannot/does not exist outside of "God"? You can't have it both ways, Karla. Either "Good" can exist independently of "God", or it can't. If you've been paying attention, you know the implications for each senario.”

I did not say “yes” I said I know that’s what you believe. I believe goodness is rooted in God’s nature thus He does what is good for He is goodness. Not that goodness becomes what He decrees because He decrees it, but He decrees what is good, not because He adheres to an external standard but because His being is the good standard.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “If we're "debating" under the pretense that your biblegod exists(which, I agree we are), then how do you say so-and-so is "secondary to whether or not God really does exist"?[bold mine] Can you show some consistancy?”

If we are going to continue to assume for the sake of argument that God, the Judeo-Christian God, exists then it seems we should look at what the Bible has to say about who this God is. To talk about hell you are pulling from Scripture as well as to talk about God’s actions in the Old Testament. Maybe it is time for me to use some Scripture and paint a more full picture of who this God is that has the right to judge people and render judgment both in time and in eternity.

Or the other option is to back totally away from the specifics of Christianity and talk about whether or not God exist in the first place. But if we want to discuss God in the Christian sense and all that that entails I am okay with that.


BoomSlang “As for "Hell"--we've been over this. It's in the forefront because, as I've said over and over and over again, any "God" who had the foreknowledge that most of humanity would be destined to "Hell", but created those people anyway, is an immoral being, and should be denounced. On the other hand, since I find the whole concept not worthy of my belief, I should think that you'd want "Hell" a topic of discussion, since the whole idea prevents people like me from being able to believe. I can't make it any clearer.”

Okay. We can keep talking about it if you like.

Karla: Yes, I am saying “good” is intrinsic to God’s nature. It has to be rooted somewhere perfect for there to be such a thing as good.

BoomSlang “Fine; then if "good" cannot/does not exist outside of "God", then "God" obviously does *not* have an external standard to which it needs to refer, in which case, when "God" says something is "good", IT IS MERELY ITS OPINION.”

We aren’t on equal plain with God. This isn’t a democracy. Even if you want to call it opinion, if what He says is good and right then it isn’t His whimsical thoughts on the matter, but the Truth. For He is the author and being of Truth.

BoomSlang “Thus, as I've said over and over and over again, such a "God" could command ANYTHING it wanted, and you, the Theist, would have no choice but to see it as "Good". It could order you to enlist in the army, and go dash your enemy's children against ROCKS. And once you bloody up some children, it could then ask you to feel "blessed" to be able to do it, no less. Disgusting.”

But what He wants is good, because He is good so all that He commands is good. He doesn’t want what isn’t good, because there is no less than good in Him. Evil is the absence of God, so there is no evil in God. So Him doing what He wants is Him doing what is good because good is who He is and what He wants.


BoomSlang “"Eternal being", or not---if this "God" created, knowing all of the problems, both for "God", and for its "creation", in advance, then this "God" should be denounced.”

Being the author of creation He knows that the good will outweigh the costs of temporary evil being in this world and that something glorious is being born out

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: “...if you offer to me that 'Romans 1:20' is 'evidence' that every human being, old-to-young, has been given 'evidence' that is 'sufficient' for belief, 'no excuses', then you, like DS, are guilty of using a fallacious (circular) argument."

You respond: I’m not offering it as evidence.

Would you please make up your mind, Karla? Are you, or are you not, offering the passage in "Romans" as objective confirmation that each and every person, past and present, old-to-young, had/has "evidence" that is "sufficient" to believe in the Christian biblegod? Yes, or no?

And for the record, if your intention here is to try to make a distinction between "God" knowing it, and you knowing it because you "trust" the bible, then you're making an irrelevant distinction. Why? Because even if "God", absolutely, most definitely knows that each person will have "evidence" that is "sufficient" for belief, "God" ALSO knows that, regardless, "Hades" will have occupants---'lots of them. I reiterate: "God" knowing the future destroys your argument.

Karla: However, are you not appealing to the Bible to validate your argument of God committing genocide?

Yes, I'm granting, for sake of argument, that the Christian biblegod exists, just as it is described in the bible. And yes, if it is so, then said "God" kills, and orders the killing, of entire groups/races of people, which, this unambiguous immoral behavior should be denounced. Moreover, the situation is compounded, when, per its "omniscience", said "God" created these people, knowing he would have to destroy them. You keep circumventing this point as if it will just "go away". It won't.

Previously, me: "I'm assuming until/unless I hear otherwise that when you say 'something else is at work", that you mean "evil spirits'."

Karla: No, I was thinking more of our own hearts and selfish desires that often chose our way over truth and righteousness despite our knowledge of the truth.

More equivocation? If our cardiovascular organs aren't "righteous", then they are full of "sin", right? Yes, I believe so---and "sin" is "evil".

Both Christians, and the bible, make clear that "evil" corrupts, and that it is a force at work here on earth. It's simply astounding how you will dodge and equivocate in an attempt to defend your theology.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I only was agreeing with God that He has provided it, whether you have seen it yet or not...

Now you're equivocating on the word "provided".

Karla, if I say that I "provided food for my family", but at the same time, I say, "but they just haven't found it yet", that will raise an eyebrow with most sane, normal people. In other words, something "provided" is pretty much useless, unless the person or persons it is intended for actually get it.

Previously, me: "So, let's be clear---was that a 'yes', you want to redefine 'moral' to mean 'whatever God commands', since we have your full admission that 'Good' cannot/does not exist outside of 'God'? You can't have it both ways, Karla. Either 'Good' can exist independently of 'God', or it can't. If you've been paying attention, you know the implications for each senario."

Karla: I did not say “yes” I said I know that’s what you believe.

I didn't say you said "yes"; I was trying to get an answer to a direct question.

Karla: I believe goodness is rooted in God’s nature thus He does what is good for He is goodness. Not that goodness becomes what He decrees because He decrees it, but He decrees what is good, not because He adheres to an external standard but because His being is the good standard.

Can you please-oh-please STOP EQUIVOCATING? It is dishonest; it is disingenuous.

Once more---is there an "external" standard of "Good" that "God" adheres to, or not? If "no", then everything "God" commands MUST BE GOOD, because you, the Theist, have no other criterion to reference and determine whether the commands of this "God" are actually "Good" or "Bad". For example, Karla can't say, "Oh my, God would never command that!!!.. because that is just bad!!" The only way you could say such thing is if you had some *other* criterion aside from what you believe comes from "God". 'Get it?

BTW, 'three times now I've asked you a very pertinent, hypothetical question. Here it is for a fourth time: Would you, Karla, KILL your own child if the "God" you worship asked you to do so? Yes, or no? If "no", why not? Why would you disobey a direct command from "God"?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: If we are going to continue to assume for the sake of argument that God, the Judeo-Christian God, exists then it seems we should look at what the Bible has to say about who this God is.

And that's precisely what I'm doing. Unfortunately, the doctrine of "Hell"(or if you prefer, "Hades") is there in plain view, just like all of the lovey-dovey passages that you extol so much. If I recall, one Xian guest even said that Jesus spoke about "Hell" more than anything else.

Karla: Maybe it is time for me to use some Scripture and paint a more full picture of who this God is that has the right to judge people and render judgment both in time and in eternity.

Paint with "scripture" all you'd like! Don't forget that biblegod is "omniscient", and thus, when biblegod is rendering "judgment", he knew the outcome IN ADVANCE, which renders *him* an immoral, imperfect being. As I've said, oh, probably a few dozen times now, this is because he knew he'd have no choice but to systematically slaughter man, women, child, woman carrying child, and animals.(huh?..no choice?)

Karla: Or the other option is to back totally away from the specifics of Christianity and talk about whether or not God exist in the first place.

Pick whichever "option" you please. However, if you choose to "talk about" whether or not the Christian biblegod exists, please remember that "evidence" that *you* deem "sufficient" isn't necessarily OBJECTIVE evidence. Personal experiences(anecdotal), revelation, and arguments from ignorance are *not* acceptable evidence. I'm just forewarning you.

Karla: But if we want to discuss God in the Christian sense and all that that entails I am okay with that.

We've been talking about "God in the Christian sense" for days on end, and you will not concede your errors in thinking. Do you know what? If you would simply concede that it's a matter of "faith" - NOT trust - but "faith", we could be done with it. But no, instead of that, you are stubbornly convicted to your belief that you "trust" that which is demonstrably unreasonable/illogical/false. To do this, you must pile fallacy upon fallacy, dodge question after question, equivocate, and weasle-word. You claim that this is place to answer the "tough questions", but honestly, why should anyone bother, because you don't do any such thing.

boomSLANG said...

Previously, me: "Fine; then if 'good' cannot/does not exist outside of 'God', then 'God' obviously does *not* have an external standard to which it needs to refer, in which case, when 'God' says something is 'good', IT IS MERELY ITS OPINION."

Karla: We aren’t on equal plain with God.

Yes, I know---our sense of morality, YOURS included, is *better* than that of "God". For instance, we(you, too) know that it is not "moral" to keep slaves; we(you, too) know that it is not "moral" to throw rocks at rebellious teens; we(you, too) know that it is not "moral" to dash children against rocks; we(you, too) know that it is not "moral" to kill entire races of people, even if they were presumably "infected" with a life-threatening disease.

And BTW, the Christian apologetic for why "God" had to DROWN the entire planet, with the exception of one family, was presumably because the former was riddled with "sin" and just could not "get it right". Okay, fine... Noah and his kin-folk presumably re-populated the planet, and looky!....here we are, a planet full of "sinners" who just can't "get it right"! So, what did the mass drowning solve? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Another massive dose of illogic.

Karla: This isn’t a democracy.

Yes, I know--it's a dictatorship. Those work out well, don't they?

Karla: Even if you want to call it opinion, if what He says is good and right then it isn’t His whimsical thoughts on the matter, but the Truth.

If this supposed "Truth" isn't based on "His whimsical thoughts", then fine. So?..then what is it "based" on????? If it's based on "His Word", it's still just an opinion. If it's not based on any external concept of "Good", ditto....opinion.

Karla: But what [biblegod] wants is good, because He is good so all that He commands is good.

In Deuteronomy "He wants" all people who would lead you away from "Him" DEAD, even family members. Because this is something he "wants", it must be "good", right? If "God" reinstated this kill nonbelievers policy, would you kill me? If not, why not?

Karla: Evil is the absence of God, so there is no evil in God.

No, "evil" is "rah", or ra, which means "calamity", as pointed out by one of your Xian constituents. Even so, "God" is the guy responsible for this, since he's the guy who says, "I create evil".

Karla: Being the author of creation He knows that the good will outweigh the costs of temporary evil being in this world and that something glorious is being born out

He *also* knows the colateral damage, when a perfect and moral being could have chosen to create *only* those whom he knew would believe, while this "glorious" group would retain the illusion of "free will", which is all you have anyway, when/if "God" knows the future.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Would you please make up your mind, Karla? Are you, or are you not, offering the passage in "Romans" as objective confirmation that each and every person, past and present, old-to-young, had/has "evidence" that is "sufficient" to believe in the Christian biblegod? Yes, or no?”

DS introduced the verse into the conversation. I agree that the verse is true, but I was not seeking to offer it to you as evidence because you do not believe the Bible is true. But I was saying that since we do seem to be discussing the Christian God maybe it makes sense to take into account the verse DS quoted.

BoomSlang “Because even if "God", absolutely, most definitely knows that each person will have "evidence" that is "sufficient" for belief, "God" ALSO knows that, regardless, "Hades" will have occupants---'lots of them. I reiterate: "God" knowing the future destroys your argument.”

How is that? When I am not arguing that people perish from lack of evidence? The “occupants” of Hell are there because that is the judgment of a life lived outside of the righteousness of God and inside of sin and death which is outside of God.



BoomSlang “Yes, I'm granting, for sake of argument, that the Christian biblegod exists, just as it is described in the bible.”

Okay. Then I have some additional information that should be considered that I will provide in a post very soon. I haven’t had time to write a post in a while.

BoomSlang “And yes, if it is so, then said "God" kills, and orders the killing, of entire groups/races of people, which, this unambiguous immoral behavior should be denounced.”

It’s not immoral if it is warranted and justified. We have already established that a hero can kill and not be a murderer.

BoomSlang “Moreover, the situation is compounded, when, per its "omniscience", said "God" created these people, knowing he would have to destroy them. You keep circumventing this point as if it will just "go away". It won't.”

I really don’t know how to answer you on this better than I already have.

Previously, me: "I'm assuming until/unless I hear otherwise that when you say 'something else is at work", that you mean "evil spirits'."

Karla: No, I was thinking more of our own hearts and selfish desires that often chose our way over truth and righteousness despite our knowledge of the truth.

BoomSlang “More equivocation? If our cardiovascular organs aren't "righteous", then they are full of "sin", right? Yes, I believe so---and "sin" is "evil". “

I thought you were asking if “evil spirits” ie “demons” was the “something else at work.” I was saying that is not what I was thinking of, though they are at work, but I was thinking more about our own selfishness, our own sin, and yes evil.

BTW, when I say “heart” is because I doubt “soul” or “spirit” would be better received terminology.

BoomSlang “Both Christians, and the bible, make clear that "evil" corrupts, and that it is a force at work here on earth. It's simply astounding how you will dodge and equivocate in an attempt to defend your theology.”

Yes evil does corrupt. I wasn’t trying to avoid saying that. I must of misunderstood what you were asking. I thought your question pertained to demons, not our own evil.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “And that's precisely what I'm doing. Unfortunately, the doctrine of "Hell"(or if you prefer, "Hades") is there in plain view, just like all of the lovey-dovey passages that you extol so much. If I recall, one Xian guest even said that Jesus spoke about "Hell" more than anything else.”

I disagreed with that person. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God more often than anything else. Jesus said that he came not to condemn people but to give life, not to take it away.

Karla: Maybe it is time for me to use some Scripture and paint a more full picture of who this God is that has the right to judge people and render judgment both in time and in eternity.

BoomSlang “Paint with "scripture" all you'd like! Don't forget that biblegod is "omniscient", and thus, when biblegod is rendering "judgment", he knew the outcome IN ADVANCE, which renders *him* an immoral, imperfect being. As I've said, oh, probably a few dozen times now, this is because he knew he'd have no choice but to systematically slaughter man, women, child, woman carrying child, and animals.(huh?..no choice?)”

Foreknowledge does not cause the event to happen. Nor does it change the fact that the outcome of sin is death unless people find redemption. There is a bigger story unfolding than people going to heaven or hell. A purpose for man for all of creation is at hand. Yes, some will not enter that purpose and instead will face judgment. But even they had a role in the big picture and their lives have value despite the very grievous outcome.



BoomSlang “ If you would simply concede that it's a matter of "faith" - NOT trust - but "faith", we could be done with it.”

I believe there is a mixture of faith built upon a whole lot of experience, reason, and logic.

BoomSlang “ But no, instead of that, you are stubbornly convicted to your belief that you "trust" that which is demonstrably unreasonable/illogical/false.”

I have very much convicted to my belief in God. I’ve known Him all my life.

BoomSlang “To do this, you must pile fallacy upon fallacy, dodge question after question, equivocate, and weasle-word. You claim that this is place to answer the "tough questions", but honestly, why should anyone bother, because you don't do any such thing.”

I feel I am still very much in a place of learning from you guys how you see what I believe to be true and am still learning your questions. Even when I take a try at answering them it is still a major learning experience for me to learn the questions before I can be very much help in the answering of them. Even with my answers I know I still fail to see the question as you do and that is my desire to try to see what you see. Honestly I still perceive your questions from my own worldview and have not learned to identify with your concerns by seeing them through your eyes. I still have a long way to go. I won’t ever be an atheist, but I do defend your cause when speaking to other Christians.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: DS introduced the verse into the conversation. I agree that the verse is true, but I was not seeking to offer it to you as evidence because you do not believe the Bible is true.

But as I've stated over and over and over---even if I concede that said verse is "true", there are some note-worthy implications. Despite my pointing these implications out again and again, you keep ignoring them.

I'll attempt this yet one more time:

Even if the verse in question states that there are "no excuses" for not believing, "God" knew, a priori, that not all people would believe. Call it "an excuse", or call it something else, that is besides the point.

Previously, me: "...even if 'God', absolutely, most definitely knows that each person will have 'evidence' that is 'sufficient' for belief, 'God' ALSO knows that, regardless, 'Hades' will have occupants---'lots of them. I reiterate: 'God' knowing the future destroys your argument."

Karla: How is that?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot be this obtuse--I simply do not believe it!

Omniscient: ADJECTIVE:

1. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

ref: American Heritage)

Do you see that, Karla? Knowing "EVERYTHING"[capitalization, mine]. Please further note that included in the set of "everything" is a knowledge of the FUTURE. If "God" knows the future, and "God" cannot be wrong, then free agency is non-existent, both for "creation", and for "Creator". In other words, the future set of events is predetermined.

Therefore, it doesn't make a drop of difference if "God" said there's "no excuses" for not believing. Not only did "God" know there would be nonbelievers(those bound for "Hell"), it was also "Prophesied" that there'd be nonbelievers/backsliders, etc.

Honestly, please tell me what it is that you don't understand about this blatant, philosophical conundrum.

Karla: The “occupants” of Hell are there because that is the judgment of a life lived outside of the righteousness of God and inside of sin and death which is outside of God.

Yes, yes!!! I get that much, already! Now in fairness, you try to "get" this: "God" KNEW that people would live "a life outside righteousness", yet, he created them anyway, despite this knowledge.

Therefore, I reiterate-- this "God" is a sadistic, immoral being not worthy of my "worship", let alone, my "love".

boomSLANG said...

Karla: It’s not immoral if it is warranted and justified. We have already established that a hero can kill and not be a murderer

YOU. DO. NOT. LISTEN. Yes, a "hero" can take a life if it prevents the UNNECESSARY harm of the group. However, it was NOT NECESSARY that "God" create those whom he knew he'd have "no choice" but to SLAUGHTER.(huh?..no choice?)

Moreover, even if I grant that Mr. "Omnipotent" had no choice but create people whom he knew he'd have to KILL, he could kill them in HUMANE ways. Good grief, your biblegod can snap his celestial fingers and create planets and stars!.. so surely he can snap his fingers and have people expire in a humane way. He does NOT have to DROWN people, and order that children be DASHED against ROCKS. That is SICKENING, and for you to say such behavior is "justified" and "warranted" shows me how scary of a person you might very well be.

Speaking of scary, here's the question for a FIFTH time: Would you, Karla, KILL your own child if your biblegod, who you say is "perfectly just", commanded you to do so? Yes, or no? If "no", why not?

Karla: BTW, when I say “heart” is because I doubt “soul” or “spirit” would be better received terminology.

It's all metaphorical godspeak that means absolutely nothing to someone who isn't already convinced.

Karla: I disagreed with that person. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God more often than anything else. Jesus said that he came not to condemn people but to give life, not to take it away.

You guys can hash it out to see who knows "the Truth". Meanwhile, the doctrine of "Hell" remains, and it prevents compassionate, intellectually honest people from believing that the concept of TORTURING human beings WITH FIRE comes from an "all-loving" being. 'Utterly ridiculous.

Previously, me: "Don't forget that biblegod is 'omniscient', and thus, when biblegod is rendering 'judgment', he knew the outcome IN ADVANCE, which renders *him* an immoral, imperfect being. As I've said, oh, probably a few dozen times now, this is because he knew he'd have no choice but to systematically slaughter man, women, child, woman carrying child, and animals."

You attempt...Foreknowledge does not cause the event to happen.

Logic says that you're wrong. Logic(and common sense) says that a foreknowledge of the future set of events means predetermination. For example(yes, another example)---if "God" knows that Karla is going to get a speeding ticket @ 3:14 PM, March, 3, 2010, then you WILL be speeding on that day, and thus, you will get the ticket, because, by definition, "God" cannot be wrong; the knowledge of "God" is perfect and absolute. Despite that you retain the illusion of "free will", you WILL speed on that day.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: There is a bigger story unfolding than people going to heaven or hell. A purpose for man for all of creation is at hand. Yes, some will not enter that purpose and instead will face judgment.

Now you are seemingly underscoring what I've been contending all along. Although, it conflicts with your previous statements. So much for consistancy.

Karla: But even they had a role in the big picture and their lives have value despite the very grievous outcome.

Oh, I see....like, a consolation prize, right? My 60, 70, 80, 90, years has "value", but the "big picture" is that I was a nonbeliever, and therefore, I deserve to be tortured with fire for all of eternity. 'Simply appalling that you'd say(and believe) such things as what you just said, above.

Karla: I believe there is a mixture of faith built upon a whole lot of experience, reason, and logic.

1) Experience is evidence of nothing, outside of the person's experience.

2) What you believe to be "reason" and "logic" has been shown to be fallacious reasoning and fallacious logic, over and over and over, again.

Karla: I have very much convicted to my belief in God. I’ve known Him all my life.

Correction--you *believe* you've "known Him" all of your life. You cannot prove that you have a "relationship" with an invisible, noncorporeal, immaterial being. Don't stretch the truth.

Karla: Honestly I still perceive your questions from my own worldview and have not learned to identify with your concerns by seeing them through your eyes.

"Married bachelors" do not/cannot exist; "square circles" do not/cannot exist. "Omniscient omnipotent beings" do not/cannot exist. You don't need to see anything "through" someone elses "eyes" to know this. No amount of believing with your "heart" will make any of the aforementioned concepts "real".

Karla: I still have a long way to go.

You don't show any signs, whatsoever, of wanting to "go" anywhere outside of where you already are. None.

Karla: I won’t ever be an atheist...

I, and countless former believers, used to say the same thing. In any event, you say it, seemingly, with an eye of omniscience. Very interesting.

Karla: ..but I do defend your cause when speaking to other Christians.

I'm almost afraid to ask.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Once more---is there an "external" standard of "Good" that "God" adheres to, or not?”

No.


BoomSlang “If "no", then everything "God" commands MUST BE GOOD, because you, the Theist, have no other criterion to reference and determine whether the commands of this "God" are actually "Good" or "Bad".”

Yes everything He commands or does is good, not because He commands it, but because He is good.

BoomSlang “For example, Karla can't say, "Oh my, God would never command that!!!.. because that is just bad!!" The only way you could say such thing is if you had some *other* criterion aside from what you believe comes from "God". 'Get it?”


Not so. We don’t need some “other criterion” because 1) if God is really good, we have no need to judge His actions 2) if we needed to judge His actions the first premise of His goodness is already defeated 3) if the first premise is true that God is good then what we would be looking at is if the action proposed came from God or another source


BoomSlang “BTW, 'three times now I've asked you a very pertinent, hypothetical question. Here it is for a fourth time: Would you, Karla, KILL your own child if the "God" you worship asked you to do so? Yes, or no? If "no", why not? Why would you disobey a direct command from "God"?”


I don’t really know what I would do in that situation. I don’t believe God would ask that these days because the conditions of man has changed since Jesus came and God doesn’t have to deal with us the same way as in the Old Testament. But I live in America, I don’t live where brother may go to war against brother and where a parent might have to take their own child’s life. I can’t even imagine being that situation and I don’t know if I would be able to do it.

Here is something to consider when I look at something to see if it is true I first look at the philosophical level, then the practical level, both need to line up, but often times we can get things backwards when we look at the practical level first.

For instance, I heard someone the other day say they thought universal health care was good because they needed health care and couldn’t afford it. That is no different than someone saying it is bad because they have health care and can afford it. The practical need or lack of need does not translate into what ought be policy for the entire nation. (not to get into a political conversation, I’m just using this as an illustration).

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Therefore, it doesn't make a drop of difference if "God" said there's "no excuses" for not believing. Not only did "God" know there would be nonbelievers(those bound for "Hell"), it was also "Prophesied" that there'd be nonbelievers/backsliders, etc."

God having prior knowledge does not mean he caused it, nor does it mean the person somehow deserves it less because of His foreknowledge.

If I could see in the future that my future child was going to punch a kid he was playing with and then that event happens and I spank the child for punching the kid, that doesn't change that the kid deserved the spanking just because I saw the events unfold before they happened. Nor does it mean I caused the child to punch the kid. Nor would I choose to not have such a child.

Karla said...

Karla: ..but I do defend your cause when speaking to other Christians.

BoomSlang “I'm almost afraid to ask.”

I’m not sure if that is asking or not. But I’ll answer just the same. I try to dispel some of the illusions and myths Christians have about atheists. I’ll hear people who don’t know any better think all atheists are people who mock God, reject Him, and are out to take away the rights of people of faith to believe. I work amongst Christians to help dispel some of those myths.

Karla: I have very much convicted to my belief in God. I’ve known Him all my life.

BoomSlang “Correction--you *believe* you've "known Him" all of your life. You cannot prove that you have a "relationship" with an invisible, noncorporeal, immaterial being. Don't stretch the truth.”

You can’t know that I don’t have a relationship with God.


Karla: I won’t ever be an atheist...

BoomSlang “I, and countless former believers, used to say the same thing. In any event, you say it, seemingly, with an eye of omniscience. Very interesting.”


I know myself and I know God so it is safe to say I will never part ways with Him.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "Once more---is there an 'external' standard of 'Good' that 'God' adheres to, or not?"

Karla: No.

Thank you.

Then, regarding "morality", "God" answers to no one. Said being does not reference any concepts or ideals outside of itself for what is "good" or bad". Therefore, as I've been saying all along, "God" can command any damned thing it wants to command, regardless of how harmful to human beings it is, and you and your Christian consituents have to see these commands as "good".

Let's see, so.......bloody up your enemy's children by dashing them against rocks? Sure! it's a "good" thing!!! Throw rocks at defiant teenagers should they misbehave? Sure!... why not?....it's a "good" thing!!! Kill nonbelievers? Come and get me! Killing nonbelievers is a "good" thing!!!! And if your apologetic is that these principles are out-moded in this day and age, then you illustrate, perfectly, how your biblegod's "morality" is NOT "Objective"/"Absolute", as in, unchanging.

And again, that your biblegod can command anything it wants, and you will defend it, is why said "God" should be denounced if it actually existed. I'm just glad it doesn't exist. Notwithstanding, that still leaves people like you, Karla, who would do ANYTHING to their fellow human beings, no matter how harmful, if you actually believed that your "God" was commanding it. You can't say "no" to "God"!....that's good ol' fundamentalism for you.

Karla: Yes everything He commands or does is good..

Yes, for instance, "He" could tell our soldiers to help themselves to the enemy's daughters. That would be "good"!!! You have no moral grounds to stand on, nor the authority to denounce such commands, because, quote:

"everything He commands or does is good" ~ Karla

Karla: ...not because He commands it, but because He is good.

FALSE! Either, a) "God" commands certain things because *certain* things are "Good", or b) what "God" commands is "good" because he/she/it is "God". It's binary, Karla---one or the other is true, but not both. Over and over and over again, you choose "b".

Karla: 1) if God is really good, we have no need to judge His actions

You said "if". How would you *know* if "God" is "really good"? What would you base it on? If it's based on "God", and nothing else, then I reiterate---"God" could command ANYTHING, and it would be "good". For instance, if "God" takes action against nonbelievers(like he did in the bible) and, let's say, he rounds them all up and DROWNS them, you're right, who are you to "judge His actions"? THAT is precisely the position you're taking. Sickening, plain sickening---you should be ashamed of yourself.

Karla: 2) if we needed to judge His actions the first premise of His goodness is already defeated

So okay, fine, don't "judge His actions". Keep right on supporting this "God", no matter how dispicable "His" actions are. This is your "philosophy"; not mine.

Karla: 3) if the first premise is true that God is good then what we would be looking at is if the action proposed came from God or another source

Oh, really? So, in Deuteronomy, when "God" unequivocately encourages you to kill anyone who would attempt to lead you away from "Him", this came from "another source"???

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "BTW, 'three times now I've asked you a very pertinent, hypothetical question. Here it is for a fourth time: Would you, Karla, KILL your own child if the "God" you worship asked you to do so? Yes, or no? If 'no', why not? Why would you disobey a direct command from 'God'?"

Karla: I don’t really know what I would do in that situation.

Which is why you are a danger to your own family, and others.

Karla: I don’t believe God would ask that these days...

What do mean, "these days"????? Is this an admission that "God" decrees things based on the time period??

Karla: ...because the conditions of man has changed since Jesus came..

Bull'. Let's review: "God" had to drown the planet, why? Because human beings were "sinful" and didn't make "Righteous" choices, so the story goes. Now, if you're suggesting that human beings are any better "these days", I honestly don't know how you could tell me this with a straight face. Simply astounding.

Karla: ...and God doesn’t have to deal with us the same way as in the Old Testament.

'Sorry, there's no "statute of limitation" for crimes against humanity.

Karla: I can’t even imagine being that situation and I don’t know if I would be able to do it.

Let the record show that you "don't know" if you would obey a direct command from "God", who, according to you, has Absolute authority over you. This speaks volumes.

Karla: Here is something to consider when I look at something to see if it is true I first look at the philosophical level, then the practical level, both need to line up, but often times we can get things backwards when we look at the practical level first.

Okay, I considered it, and I see more blantant inconsistancy.

When/if "God" presumably commands something, what YOUR personal "philosophical" take on the situation is, is irrelevant. Whether said command is "practical" or not, to you, is also completely irrelevant. This is simply you trying to have it both ways(again).

Karla: For instance, I heard someone the other day say they thought universal health care was good because they needed health care and couldn’t afford it. That is no different than someone saying it is bad because they have health care and can afford it. The practical need or lack of need does not translate into what ought be policy for the entire nation. (not to get into a political conversation, I’m just using this as an illustration).

Good grief!!! Totally, 100% IRRELEVANT. No person that I know claims to be the arbiter of knowing what's best for all of the citizens of the U.S. "God", on the other hand, does. So, to make your example actually analogous, how about if "God" said we should KILL all AIDS patients as to eliminate health concerns for healthy individuals? Theists would have to follow orders. That would be you. It doesn't matter what your "philosophical" position is, or if you think the idea's "practical", or not. Can you please-oh-please show some consistancy?

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "Therefore, it doesn't make a drop of difference if 'God said there's 'no excuses' for not believing. Not only did 'God' know there would be nonbelievers(those bound for 'Hell'), it was also 'Prophesied' that there'd be nonbelievers/backsliders, etc."

Karla: God having prior knowledge does not mean he caused it...

I NEVER SAID "God" was the "cause". Please actually try to pay attention. My position is this: If "God" knows the future outcome of all events, and at the same time, "God" cannot be wrong, then "free will" is obsolete.

Karla: ...nor does it mean the person somehow deserves it less because of His foreknowledge

How does one "deserve" a consequence for an action that was predetermined? If "God" knows I'll be a nonbeliever BEFORE I'm "created", then I HAVE TO BE a nonbeliever, or else, "God" would have been wrong in its "Absolute Knowledge". Therefore, I presumably "deserve" a punishment for something I have/had no control over. 'Time to get honest, Karla. If your biblegod exists, it can either be "omniscient", or it can be "omnipotent". But it cannot be both.

Karla: If I could see in the future that my future child was going to punch a kid he was playing with and then that event happens and I spank the child for punching the kid, that doesn't change that the kid deserved the spanking just because I saw the events unfold before they happened. Nor does it mean I caused the child to punch the kid. Nor would I choose to not have such a child.

Per ususal, your analogy is seriously lacking. My goodness, we're not talking about a "God" who paddles defiant human beings. We are talking about a "God" who DROWNS people, smites people, and tortures them with FIRE. And you are perfectly fine with all of this, because this dispicable being goes by the name, "God". Sickening.

Karla: You can’t know that I don’t have a relationship with God.

And guess what? I don't *claim* to "know" any such thing. My claim is that you cannot prove that you "have a relationship" with an invisible, conscious being. And until you *can* prove it, I'm not being unreasonable to doubt you. For the time being, your belief - including all of the illogic that comes with it - dead-ends at "I believe".

Karla: I try to dispel some of the illusions and myths Christians have about atheists.

Uh-huh. Make sure that you "dispel" the myth that Atheists can choose to be something other than what "God" already knew they were going to be.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "a) "God" commands certain things because *certain* things are "Good", or b) what "God" commands is "good" because he/she/it is "God". It's binary, Karla---one or the other is true, but not both. Over and over and over again, you choose "b"."

You do not seem to have understood my position. God commands what is good because He is good and goodness is Himself. Real, true, honest goodness is His nature. So bad things don't become good because He commands it, but all that He commands is good because He is good and He is always Himself.

If there was some other being that was the standard of good then that would be God and we would still be talking about a good God. If "goodness" exists it has to be anchored somewhere ontologically. It isn't this abstract form, it isn't relative to the minds of man.

Karla said...

Boom as to your other two recent comments, I really don't know what else to say. Every time I say something you take it to mean something else and I spend more time trying to correct your summary of what I said than we do getting anywhere beyond that. I still have hopes of bridging the worldview gap but at the moment I do not know how to proceed.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You do not seem to have understood my position. God commands what is good because He is good and goodness is Himself. Real, true, honest goodness is His nature. So bad things don't become good because He commands it, but *ALL THAT HE COMMANDS IS GOOD BECAUSE HE IS GOOD and He is always Himself.[bold and capitialization added]

So, if "God" decides that he wants to test Karla's "faith" by asking her to KILL her own child, it would be a "good" command(because said command came from "God"), and according to Karla's previous statements, it would follow that it would be "good" that she obey said command.

Karla, it is all there in plain text for anyone who can read. Yet, previously, you have gone on record and said that you "DON'T KNOW"[bold and capitalization added] if you would obey such a command.

There is blatant inconsistancy in your reasoning, yet, you continue to defend these flaws. You are basically second-guessing the authority of your biblegod, while spouting off daily about how "Righteous", "Good", and "Perfect" this supposed "God" is. I have not caricatured nor misrepresented your position in the slightest bit; the text is here for all to see. Yet, you (disingenuously) accuse me of misrepresenting/misunderstanding your position. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself for such flagrant dishonesty.

Karla: I still have hopes of bridging the worldview gap but at the moment I do not know how to proceed.

Guess what, Karla? You're not going to "bridge" any "gap" as long as compassionate, intellectually honest people exist. As I've stated over and over and over and over, ad nauseam, omniscience and omnipotence are mutally exclusive concepts. If your biblegod actually existed and it knows the future set of events(as Christianity claims it does), and this supposed Absolute knowledge included, not only our choices, but its very OWN choices as well, then you have a being who has limits on its power, in which case, said being is NOT "omnipotent". Basic logic. I'm certainly not going worship a being that cannot even change its mind, even if I was thoroughly convinced it existed.

Karla said...

Boom, I don't believe God would command me to do that. God could not order me to murder, but if I was faced with a situation where my child was a threat to society and I had to end his life for the greater good I don't know if I could do it no matter how right I thought it might be. If someone asked me if I would deny the Lord under torture, I would also say I don't know because while there would be no doubt that God is true and real I don't know what I would do to stop pain from happening to me as I have a low tolerance of pain and have never been in that situation.

God wills what is good because He is always Himself and He is the quintessential good Being. I don't understand how that doesn't translate.

Also many people disagree with your assessment of God removing free will because he knows the future. Quixote dialoged at length on that topic with another atheists a few months ago demonstrating the logic of God being omniscient and omnipotent.

Is there any amount of evidence that could ever cause you to see a need to align yourself with God? And by God I mean a good God that created you, loves you, and has great value and purpose for you, and wants to have relationship with you?

boomSLANG said...

::sigh::

Karla: I don't believe God would command me to do that.

You have NO REASON, whatsoever, to doubt that your biblegod would command you do such a thing. As you know, or should know, in your bible this very command was issued on a couple of occasions, if memory serves.

But that is BESIDES the point. The hypothetical I propose is that this supposed "God" *does* command you to do it, and let the record show that your answer is "I don't know". There is a good reason that you would admittedly (and rightfully) be apprehensive about carrying out such a heinously vile "command" when it concerns testing one's "faith".

Karla: God could not order me to murder..

You would have to clarify---does that mean "God" wouldn't order it, or does that again mean that you would disobey a direct command from "God" if he ordered it? If the former, then something must exist that prevents him from ordering "murder", otherwise, he has NO need to "limit" himself in what he can or can't command. On the other hand, if limiting himself on what he can and can't command is necessary, then those limits are based on something besides himself.

BTW, if your excuse for why you believe your biblegod wouldn't command you to do this is because we are living in a different time-period, then oops!..there goes your "Absolute morality" argument. To be clear--"Moral absolutism" is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.(Wiki).

Therefore, if killing nonbelievers was the moral thing to do just a few thousand years ago, it should be perfectly "moral" today. In other words, you can't use that as an excuse(not that it will stop you from trying)

Karla: God wills what is good because He is always Himself and He is the quintessential good Being. I don't understand how that doesn't translate.

Um, it "doesn't translate" because the bible exists, and in its contents, this "God" you speak of orders and commits the most vile, heinously cruel acts known to humankind. Acts that he commits include, sending plagues, slaughtering and DROWING human beings...oh, and if death by drowning isn't unpleasant enough, he sees to it that nonchristians are kept alive and perpetually tortured with FIRE, when he knew, per his "omniscience", that this would be these people's fate. <<< THAT, Karla, is how it "doesn't translate" that the biblegod that you pretend to worship is a "quintessential good Being".

Morever, if you really, really believed that your bible was so "good", there would be no reason to harbor any apprehension, whatsoever, if said being commanded you to kill your own child for its own "greater good" cause. If "God" wants your child dead, there is a "good" reason for it, according to the religious philosophy that you espouse.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Also many people disagree with your assessment of God removing free will because he knows the future.

This is pathetic---you either misspoke, or you still don't my argument, and this thread is replete with posts where I delineate said argument(s) in great detail.

I NEVER, EVER said anything about "God removing free will". A day ago you misrepresented my position by saying that I said "God causes" people's actions to line up with his knowledge of the future. Today you are saying something about "God removing free will". It's simply astounding that you would actually expect anyone to take you seriously, with either, such carelessness, or such dishonesty. I'll run with the latter, because I don't believe that this is "carelessness".

Karla: Quixote dialoged at length on that topic with another atheists a few months ago demonstrating the logic of God being omniscient and omnipotent.

Hurray for him. Unless he redefined "omniscient" and/or "omnipotent", or...unless he said, "I have faith that the conceptually impossible is possible"(or something similar), I'm not convinced. To be sure, feel free to extract his best argument and paste it here. And yes, I can dismiss it out-of-hand, just like we can dismiss someone who says they know a "married bachelor", out of hand.

Karla: Is there any amount of evidence that could ever cause you to see a need to align yourself with God?

If, by "God", you mean the god of the bible, then my answer is an unequivocal, NO, I can't think of any "evidence" that, if said "evidence" existed, it would "cause" me to need or want to "align" myself with said deity. I certainly don't need that deity, or any other, for "morality", because as I've established several times, there isn't any "Moral Absolutism", including in the "Body of Christ".

Notwithstanding, if this biblegod would actually give me the evidence that it knows that I'd require for belief, I would gladly change my position on its nonexistence. For instance, if said deity made a physical appearance and worked an UNambiguous miracle---for example, if it healed an entire children's hospital of terminally-ill children, as opposed to sitting on its rear-end because someone ate some fruit, then I would adopt a belief in said being. That doesn't, however, mean that I'd accept its policies as they are delineated in the Christian handbook.

In case you didn't notice, I have just described a senario, that, if it happened, my position would be falsified. Can you do the same and offer a senario, where, if true, it would falsify your biblegod? (note...'not holding my breath)

And by God I mean a good God that created you, loves you, and has great value and purpose for you, and wants to have relationship with you?

Oh, so you mean some "God" other than the one described in the bible. Okay, I'll have to think on it. For the time being, if some all-powerful being exists and he/she/it wants to "have a relationship" with me, I suppose it will just do it.

cl said...

boomSLANG,

Sorry to have disappeared over the weeks. I agree with you that intent is often crucial in making accurate moral judgments.

"Well, let's say that an under-cover policeman is dining out in a packed restaurant, and an armed thug comes waltzing in and demands the wallets/purses of all the patrons. If the under-cover officer pulled out his service revolver and killed the thug, he would be acting morally, and thus, he could be considered a "hero", of sorts."

Why? Or, what criteria can you give me that provide a clear distinction between immoral taking of life, and moral taking of life?

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "..a 'hero' might take a life to prevent the unnecessary harm of the group."

cl, previously: I agree. Would you say such taking of life was immoral?

No, I wouldn't.

Me, previously: "...let's say that an under-cover policeman is dining out in a packed restaurant, and an armed thug comes waltzing in and demands the wallets/purses of all the patrons. If the under-cover officer pulled out his service revolver and killed the thug, he would be acting morally, and thus, he could be considered a 'hero', of sorts."

cl: Why?

Why, what? Why might he be considered a "hero"? Or why do I consider what he did to be moral?

cl: Or, what criteria can you give me that provide a clear distinction between immoral taking of life, and moral taking of life?

The closest I can come to a "clear distinction" between the two, is that a "moral taking of life" is if/when the deceased was threatening unnecessary harm to other human beings. I say, "the closest I can come", because I am not now, nor have I ever, argued for Moral Absolutism. There is cultural relativity to consider, too.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “You would have to clarify---does that mean "God" wouldn't order it, or does that again mean that you would disobey a direct command from "God" if he ordered it?”

God only kills if it is good and just to do so. He never murders (an unjust killing).

BoomSlang “If the former, then something must exist that prevents him from ordering "murder", otherwise, he has NO need to "limit" himself in what he can or can't command.”

Just for a minute consider that God really is fully and perfectly good. If this was true, could a fully and perfect good Being do something not good? The only thing that “limits” Him is His perfect goodness; it is the best thing ever to be so fully good that only goodness comes from Him.

Your argument is this cannot be so because you can name things that He has presumably, if He existed, done which in your estimation cannot be good, so you cannot seem to consider a good being who logically does good things.


BoomSlang “On the other hand, if limiting himself on what he can and can't command is necessary, then those limits are based on something besides himself.”

No. His nature is good so His actions would be the same as that nature. If there is no duplicity in Him, and He is fully completely perfectly absolutely good then all He is and does and says is the same. There doesn’t have to be an external standard or else that would be the Being that is God. For there cannot logically be some abstract non-ontological standard floating around the cosmos that we all tap into in some degree. Plato thought so, but that was his attempt to describe an absolute source for good. His error was in not realizing that absolute needed a sentient eternal form.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "The closest I can come to a "clear distinction" between the two, is that a "moral taking of life" is if/when the deceased was threatening unnecessary harm to other human beings. I say, "the closest I can come", because I am not now, nor have I ever, argued for Objective Moralism. There is cultural relativity to consider, too."

Aside from the hero thing, I'm curious what you think about
the taking of a life as punishment? Do you think execution could ever be just?

Karla said...

BoomSlang "As I've stated over and over and over and over, ad nauseam, omniscience and omnipotence are mutally exclusive concepts. If your biblegod actually existed and it knows the future set of events(as Christianity claims it does), and this supposed Absolute knowledge included, not only our choices, but its very OWN choices as well, then you have a being who has limits on its power, in which case, said being is NOT "omnipotent"."

I think God does choose to not use His power at times when it is good to do so. Jesus had the power to not be captured by the soldiers, beaten, and nailed to a cross, and yet He chose not to use that power for our good.

boomSLANG said...

Karla says: God only kills if it is good and just to do so. He never murders (an unjust killing).

Yes, uh-huh. So how about the means by which "God" kills, when "God" decides that he has no choice but to kill people? Do principles such as "compassion", "morality" and being "just" apply here, too? Or do those principles fly out the window when it suits "God"? In other words, if/when your biblegod decides that he needs to kill human beings because they displease him in some way(nevermind, for the moment, that an "omniscient" being knows all future decisions, both ours, and its own), will you tell me with a straight face that it is your position that this "God" can DROWN people and inflict plagues on them, etc., and that this should be viewed as perfectly acceptable? And then once the deceased die a drawn-out, gruesome death, is it further your position that keeping these people alive and torturing them fire is "morally" and "justly" acceptable, too? Yes, or no?

Karla: Just for a minute consider that God really is fully and perfectly good. If this was true, could a fully and perfect good Being do something not good?

Again, I cannot believe what I am reading. That you don't see the error in your position is simply astonishing to me. The very question you ask would require me to have a standard of "good"/"not good" that is INDEPENDENT of "God" with which to compare with the "something" that "God" does.

Please let this penetrate: If there is NO external concept of "good"; if "good" cannot exist *independently* of "God", then d*mn it, Karla, GOD CAN COMMAND ANYTHING IT WANTS, and you, its supporter, must see said commands as "good". It could command our soldiers to dash our Muslim opponent's children against rocks; it could command our soldiers to keep our enemy's virgin daughters to do with as they please; it could command our soldiers to poison their water supply with arsenic...and on, and on with whatever vile senarios you can imagine, and YOU, Karla, would have to see these "commands" as "good", "just", and "moral".

Now, are you telling me that you would see the aforementioned commands as "good", "moral", and "just", if in fact your biblegod ordered this?

And BTW, for the ecomomy of time and space, here's a reminder: You CANNOT say that "God" wouldn't command those things, because, a) he commands similar things in the bible, and b) you'd need an EXTERNAL concept of "good"/"bad" to contrast it with the actions of "God", to say they are "not good".

You cannot have it both ways, so please, get honest and stop trying.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Your argument is this cannot be so because you can name things that He has presumably, if He existed, done which in your estimation cannot be good, so you cannot seem to consider a good being who logically does good things.

Bzzzzzt! NO!! That is NOT my "argument". A "being" who defines the very concept of "good" can define it any ol' way it wants!...::hic'p::...any ol' way it wants!...::hic'p::...any ol' way it wants!!!! Why? Because, again, who are we to say that what it does is NOT "good", if we have NO standard of "good" independent of said "God". 'Get it? Do you? Good grief, how tedious this has become.

Karla: Aside from the hero thing, I'm curious what you think about
the taking of a life as punishment? Do you think execution could ever be just?


'Depends on the crime. It certainly wouldn't be "just" to punish every crime equally across the board, now would it? Of course not. There's a good reason we have "misdemeanor" and "felony" charges. We wouldn't order a 5 yr-old who stole a candy bar to be executed, because, as intelligent and compassionate people, we know that children can't fully grasp the severity of "right"/"wrong". Yet, we are to believe that a new-born baby has a concept of "right"/"wrong", and further, that it is "guilty" for being unable to choose "right", because its descendents ate a piece of fruit. 'Absurd.

But to attempt to answer your question, it depends on the murderer's state of mind. Some people are mentally ill and don't have any sense of "right" or "wrong", making them ammoral, as opposed to immoral. As for murderers who know they've done something wrong, I'm torn on the issue. Now's a good time to interject that even Christians are divided on this issue, as well as other social issues of the day..i.e..arbortion, right to life, assisted suicide, etc. They claim that "Objective Morals" are found in their bibles, yet, they cannot agree on these issues. 'Very revealing, IMO.

Karla: I think God does choose to not use His power at times when it is good to do so. Jesus had the power to not be captured by the soldiers, beaten, and nailed to a cross, and yet He chose not to use that power for our good.

So "God" can, at will, forget what it presumably knows? Really? Please, you'll have to do better.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Please let this penetrate: If there is NO external concept of "good"; if "good" cannot exist *independently* of "God", then d*mn it, Karla, GOD CAN COMMAND ANYTHING IT WANTS,"

This is what you seem not to understand, if He is ALL GOOD then His will is GOOD and He thus wants GOOD things and does what is GOOD. Doing what He wants is doing what is good because what He wants is good.

I know you don't believe He 1) exist and 2) is good if He did, but can you not understand that it is logical for a good being to do good things only?


Also that there doesn't need to be an outside standard to determine if He is good because He is the standard of what is good.


Furthermore, by what standard should I accept your judgment that murder or anything else is wrong?

Karla said...

Boomslang “Bzzzzzt! NO!! That is NOT my "argument". A "being" who defines the very concept of "good" can define it any ol' way it wants!...::hic'p::...any ol' way it wants!...::hic'p::...any ol' way it wants!!!! Why? Because, again, who are we to say that what it does is NOT "good", if we have NO standard of "good" independent of said "God". 'Get it? Do you? Good grief, how tedious this has become.”

I really don’t want to irritate you, if this conversation is too aggravating we can stop.

As for God’s goodness it’s not an arbitrary standard of a duplicitous being. His nature is not like ours where we are after our own selfish interest at the expense of others. Goodness is His nature, what He wants is in accordance with that nature of absolute goodness. And love is equally His nature. He is also just. When He responds to sin by judgment in some calamitous form it is because that is the good thing to do and when He withholds judgment of that evil it is also for a good purpose. When He responds with mercy and grace rather than judgment it is when it is the right thing to do.

Seriously, I’m not hear to ruffle feathers and be an irritant to atheists. I prefer to stop debating the topic rather than to cause any aggravation. You’ll have to let me know if you think we’ve reached that point.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “But to attempt to answer your question, it depends on the murderer's state of mind. Some people are mentally ill and don't have any sense of "right" or "wrong", making them ammoral, as opposed to immoral.”

True. Think about that though, we only see people culpable of a crime if they have knowledge that the thing they did was wrong. And it usually isn’t that they were aware of the law of the land, but the determining factor is if they personally have understanding of a difference between right and wrong. Someone isn’t considered mentally ill because they were unaware that murder was on the law books as a crime, but when they demonstrate they have no moral reasoning capability.

Boomslang “As for murderers who know they've done something wrong, I'm torn on the issue.”

Fair enough. I actually have never taken a firm stance on the “issue” of capitol punishment. Thought I don’t have any qualms with self-defense, or soldiers killing in battle, or execution for war crimes such as the 911 terrorists who are now being given American civil rights and tried. But that’s getting off into politics I guess. . . .


BoomSlang “Now's a good time to interject that even Christians are divided on this issue, as well as other social issues of the day..i.e..arbortion, right to life, assisted suicide, etc. They claim that "Objective Morals" are found in their bibles, yet, they cannot agree on these issues. 'Very revealing, IMO.”

Yes Christians are divided on these topics. The question isn’t though does everyone agree on what is right, but is there a right. The reason for debate on these topics is because there is an agreement among most that there is a right and we are at odds as to what is right. Not that anything goes for if it was “to each his own” there wouldn’t be cause for debate.

Karla: I think God does choose to not use His power at times when it is good to do so. Jesus had the power to not be captured by the soldiers, beaten, and nailed to a cross, and yet He chose not to use that power for our good.

BoomSlang “So "God" can, at will, forget what it presumably knows? Really? Please, you'll have to do better.”

While I wasn’t talking about His omniscience but His omnipotence, He does say in Scripture that He chooses to forget the sins He has forgiven and remembers them no longer. So I guess you could say He can choose to forget.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: His nature is not like ours where we are after our own selfish interest at the expense of others.[bold added]

And how many people do you think truly believe that having a "selfish interest at the expsense of others" is "good"??? Note, the fact that we are imperfect and don't always choose "good" doesn't mean that we don't know the difference, unless the person is a child, or, in an adult's case, ammoral, and therefore, likely mentally ill.

And love is equally His nature.

Ah, bludgeoning our sensibilities with yet another of dose apologetics, I see.

Okay. Welp, here we go again---it is an insane notion to think that biblegod "loves" everyone as he sits by and watches non-christians be perpetually tortured with FIRE, when it presumably knew the final outcome, in which case, it could simply NOT have created those whom he knew would not believe, in which case, this would NOT HURT the "free will" of those whom he knew would believe.

I reiterate--if "God" is "omniscient", then our "free will" is an illusion. Yes, that means you, too, Karla. "God" already knew you'd believe before he "created" you. You are a puppet in its "Plan", as are all of us(if your worldview is correct).

And...He is also just.

Let's see, "He" can't let what he already knew was going to happen go unpunished, and further, punishes all nonbelievers the same across the board---from compassionate, law abiding citizens, to rapists, murderers, and child-molesters---they're all the "same" in the eyes of "God", and we are to believe this is "Just".

continues...When He responds to sin by judgment in some calamitous form it is because that is the good thing to do and when He withholds judgment of that evil it is also for a good purpose.

Oh, perfect. So then, let me see if I understand correctly. Would this mean that you are siding with that pathetic, sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being "Pat Robertson" on his recent remarks about Haiti? Those people are "cursed" and deserve what they got, yes?

Continues... When He responds with mercy and grace rather tha [EDIT].

'Sorry, "He" can't respond "with mercy and grace" to those whom he already knows he will not respond to. Again, "omniscience" means predetermination, and therefore, severely cripples your "argument(s)"

Karla: Think about that though, we only see people culpable of a crime if they have knowledge that the thing they did was wrong. And it usually isn’t that they were aware of the law of the land, but the determining factor is if they personally have understanding of a difference between right and wrong. Someone isn’t considered mentally ill because they were unaware that murder was on the law books as a crime, but when they demonstrate they have no moral reasoning capability.

Yes, and? You are only underscoring my point that we have a more "just" system than your biblegod. For instance, there's a good reason that we don't prosecute minors like adults when/if they commit an "immoral" act. We certainly don't throw rocks at them. Do you think we should throw rocks at them?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I don’t have any qualms with self-defense, or soldiers killing in battle, or execution for war crimes such as the 911 terrorists who are now being given American civil rights and tried. But that’s getting off into politics I guess.

Oh? Then I would be curious to know if you'd consider our troops water-boarding the Muslim captives a "war crime". In case you don't already know, water-boarding is a form of torture that simulates drowning(ironically).

Karla: Yes Christians are divided on these topics. The question isn’t though does everyone agree on what is right, but is there a right.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that that is "the question". Notwithstanding, what is the point of there being "a right", when/if those arguing that there *is* "a right" make it obsolete by projecting their own *subjective* POVs into the equation???? In other words, there is no distinction between them, and the secularists who fully concede that "morality" is subjective, not objective.

Karla: ...I guess you could say He can choose to forget.

So, biblegod can "choose to forget" something, which means, he can, and does, choose to be less than perfect, still making him imperfect.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "If there is NO external concept of 'good'; if 'good' cannot exist *independently* of 'God', then d*mn it, Karla, GOD CAN COMMAND ANYTHING IT WANTS"

Karla: This is what you seem not to understand, if He is ALL GOOD[EDIT]

"ALL GOOD" by WHAT standard!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!

Here are your two mutually exclusive choices:

a) A standard that exists outside of "God"

b) A standard that "God", himself, defines

If "a", we see the immediate problem.

If "b", reasonable people *still* see the problem.

For what seems like the hundredth time, that problem is this: "God" can define, HOWEVER HE/SHE/IT CHOOSES, what is "Good", because "God" isn't relying on a pre-existing, external concept of "Good". In such a case, "God" could wake up one day and decide that keeping slaves is "Good". "God" could decide that keeping our enemy's virgin daughters as "war booty"( pun intended) is "Good". "God" could decide that throwing rocks at rebellious teens is "Good". "God" could decide that killing pregnant women was "Good".

Karla, "God" could decide ANYTHING it wanted was "Good", because devoid of an external concept of "Good", what is "Good", is merely this god's OPINION.

Let's be sure---is it "Good" if "God" commanded parents and teachers to pelt kids with rocks when they misbehave? To be clear, that is, THROWING ROCKS AT THEM. Yes, or no? You can't say that "God" would never give that command, so don't try that apologetic with me. So...yes, or no? Is bludgeoning defiant children with rocks "Good"?

Karla: Furthermore, by what standard should I accept your judgment that murder or anything else is wrong?

As it stands, you don't accept >> my << "judgment". I didn't decide it alone. What you accept is society's judgment. Moreover, you implicitly agree, because you know that you want to survive and pursue happiness like the rest of us, and thus, that requires the AVOIDANCE OF UNNECESSARY HARM.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “And how many people do you think truly believe that having a "selfish interest at the expense of others" is "good"???”

Huh? I didn’t say that anyone didn’t believe that.

BoomSlang “ Note, the fact that we are imperfect and don't always choose "good" doesn't mean that we don't know the difference, unless the person is a child, or, in an adult's case, ammoral, and therefore, likely mentally ill.”

Yes we are imperfect, but imperfection only makes sense if we have some idea of what perfect is that we fall short of.

And love is equally His nature.

BoomSlang “Ah, bludgeoning our sensibilities with yet another of dose apologetics, I see.”

Do you know that you are also giving an apologetic every time you speak in defense of what you hold to be true? The world just means “giving a defense.”

BoomSlang “Okay. Welp, here we go again---it is an insane notion to think that biblegod "loves" everyone as he sits by and watches non-christians be perpetually tortured with FIRE, when it presumably knew the final outcome, in which case, it could simply NOT have created those whom he knew would not believe, in which case, this would NOT HURT the "free will" of those whom he knew would believe.”

You previously said “I NEVER, EVER said anything about "God removing free will".”

Now you say “I reiterate--if "God" is "omniscient", then our "free will" is an illusion. Yes, that means you, too, Karla. "God" already knew you'd believe before he "created" you. You are a puppet in its "Plan", as are all of us(if your worldview is correct).”

To me I am hearing 1) If God didn’t create those who would end up in hell he would not hurt anyone’s free will 2) you state your position was never that God and free will are contradictory then 3) I hear If God knows all things Free will is an illusion and we are puppets not free agents


BoomSlang “Oh, perfect. So then, let me see if I understand correctly. Would this mean that you are siding with that pathetic, sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being "Pat Robertson" on his recent remarks about Haiti? Those people are "cursed" and deserve what they got, yes?”

Pat said no such thing. He said that the nation has had trouble since its inception dating back to a story where the natives of Haiti swore allegiance to the devil. He spoke very sadly of their plight and spoke of hope for a better future as even now his ministry is on the ground providing relief for the people of Haiti. He did not in any way say God did it to them or that they deserved it. I listened to the broadcast myself.

I recommend checking out my latest post.

Karla said...

Karla: This is what you seem not to understand, if He is ALL GOOD[EDIT]

BoomSlang "ALL GOOD" by WHAT standard!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!”


We agree there needs to be a standard of good in order to measure ANYTHING as good. But such a standard would have to be ontological—it would have to have being—it can’t be abstract – it needs to be rooted in someone eternal.

The other option is there is no standard and we humans determine our own morality according to our own cultural agreements and laws that we create that can change at any time of majority agreement. Nothing is then essentially wrong, only provisionally so at the time it is seen by the culture as such.

Those are the choices.

Thus, the standard is Himself.


BoomSlang “For what seems like the hundredth time, that problem is this: "God" can define, HOWEVER HE/SHE/IT CHOOSES, what is "Good", because "God" isn't relying on a pre-existing, external concept of "Good".”

But what you are not getting is that His very nature is this good we speak of and all that He wants is in perfect accordance with His own good nature that is unchanging perfectly good.

Before you start arguing in the third level again by making examples of what you believe to be “not good” we must establish a parameter for how anything at all can be judged as good or not good. (see latest post and see the choices I outlined above).

Boom “Karla, "God" could decide ANYTHING it wanted was "Good", because devoid of an external concept of "Good", what is "Good", is merely this god's OPINION.”

It isn’t God that changes, He is the eternal absolute constant good. It is our morality that changes, look at culture and see the fluctuation, yes even amongst people of faith including Christians. We aren’t by any means an eternal constant of good. Nor can we point to a good abstract form as Plato tried to—we know that doesn’t work logically. But yet we still have this idea of a “right” existing so is that an illusion? If not it has to have an eternal ontological source.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "And how many people do you think truly believe that having a 'selfish interest at the expense of others' is 'good'???”

Karla: Huh? I didn’t say that anyone didn’t believe that.

Notice, I didn't say that you said whether anyone believed that or not, hence, why I *asked* the question.

Karla: Yes we are imperfect, but imperfection only makes sense if we have some idea of what perfect is that we fall short of.

We don't need to believe in "God" for the idea(and fact) that we are imperfect, by nature, to make "sense". "Nature", itself, is imperfect. Galaxies collide as we speak, and yet, I'm supposed to believe that guy who created these galaxies, along with the rest of existence, cares if I work on certain days of the week. 'Not only unbelievable, but utterly, positively, absurd.

As far as the Christian biblegod being "Perfect", please---it was "repented" that it made us. That doesn't sound like "Perfection" to me.

Karla: Do you know that you are also giving an apologetic every time you speak in defense of what you hold to be true? The world just means "giving a defense."

What I "hold to be true" doesn't need a "defense". Nature, exists. To my knowledge, no human being denies this. So, I don't need to "prove" to anyone that "nature" exists. Moreover, my being "Atheist" is not a proclamation that "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!" Again, I lack belief that a "God" exists, which is a view that I will be willing to change, once those who claim that Super-nature is responsible for "nature", can prove it. In the mean time, if I refute your arguments for "Super-nature", that doesn't *necessarily* mean that I am offering a defense of anything that isn't already proven.

Karla: To me I am hearing 1) If God didn’t create those who would end up in hell he would not hurt anyone’s free will 2) you state your position was never that God and free will are contradictory then 3) I hear If God knows all things Free will is an illusion and we are puppets not free agents

And not-too-shockingly, you still cannot repeat my argument back to me in its entirety, without error.

"1" passes. As for "2", you are off the mark. "God" and "free will" are only "contradictory" if "God" is claimed to be "omniscient".

In other words, if you will concede that your biblegod can't and doesn't know the future, and in which case, it couldn't do things like "Prophesy" this, that, and the other thing, then we can drop this particular issue.

As for "3", yes, if "God" knows the future, then the future is fixed, in which case, our choices(and its own) are solidified, and thus, our "free will" is an illusion. *However*, this does NOT necessarily mean that "God", itself, "removes free will"(as you previously said that I said). The mutual incompatibility of the concepts of "omniscience" and "omnipotence", themselves, make "free will" impossible.

So, in actuality, it is the bible's redactors who "remove the free will", and this happened when they botched up, royally, giving biblegod its contradictory attributes.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Pat (Robertson) said no such thing.

This is the same defense we hear everytime that Christians go on damage control in the wake of their religious leader's idiotic comments. But to give benefit of the doubt---even if they *did* swear "allegiance to the Devil", they are presumably going to spend eternity being tortured in "Hell", right? If so, then is it really necessary that people, including women and children, drown and have buildings fall on top of them? What?....this is Jesus' way of "priming them" for what's about to come, or something?

Karla: I recommend checking out my latest post.

I'm almost afraid to. But it's like a bad car accident---you're compelled to look.

Karla: We agree there needs to be a standard of good in order to measure ANYTHING as good. But such a standard would have to be ontological—it would have to have being—it can’t be abstract – it needs to be rooted in someone eternal.

And repeat: If "good" is "rooted" in your biblegod, then said being can command ANYTHING it feels like commanding, because it is NOT dependent on any external standard of "good". BTW, you said "eternal", as in forever, so again, I will post the same question that you previously ignored:

Previously, me, to Karla:

"Let's be sure---is it 'Good' if 'God' commanded parents and teachers to pelt kids with rocks when they misbehave? To be clear, that is, THROWING ROCKS AT THEM. Yes, or no? You can't say that 'God' would never give that command, so don't try that apologetic with me. So...yes, or no? Is bludgeoning defiant children with rocks 'Good'?"

Well?(It's even multiple choice)

you continue...It isn’t God that changes, He is the eternal absolute constant good.

Uh-huh, right, so if the "moral" thing to do a few thousand years ago was to line-up defiant teens and throw rocks at them, it should be the "moral", "good", and "just" thing to do today. So? Why don't we, a "Christian Nation", practice this form of "punishment"????? We await your answer.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: The other option is there is no standard and we humans determine our own morality according to our own cultural agreements and laws that we create that can change at any time of majority agreement. Nothing is then essentially wrong, only provisionally so at the time it is seen by the culture as such.[bold added to emphasize where the argument becomes fallacious(non-sequitur)]

Burning "witches"(human beings) has not always been considered "wrong". In fact, not long ago, it was considered the "moral" and "right" thing to do.

So, Karla, is it "essentially" not "wrong" to burn people alive, since, in our "culture" we have laws against setting people on fire, and these laws are "provisional"???? Yes, or no?

If it's "wrong", how do we know it's "wrong", if this practice was once the "moral" and "right" thing to do?

How about this: If killing those who would lead you away from "Christ" was once encouraged and considered "morally" acceptable(Deut), why isn't it considered acceptable now, and *how* do we know it isn't acceptable now?

Karla: Those are the choices.

Yes, and you had it right in your rendition of the latter choice, that is, until you got to your fallacious conclusion.

Karla: Thus, the standard is Himself.

False; no, it most certainly is not. And BTW, I await your answers to all of the above questions.

Karla: Before you start arguing in the third level again by making examples of what you believe to be “not good” we must establish a parameter for how anything at all can be judged as good or not good. (see latest post and see the choices I outlined above).

No such "parameter" will be established in a completely objective sense, because "Moral Objectivism" is a farse; it doesn't exist. In our society, the closest thing you'll get, again, is the avoidance of unnecessary harm.

Karla: We aren’t by any means an eternal constant of good. Nor can we point to a good abstract form as Plato tried to—we know that doesn’t work logically. But yet we still have this idea of a “right” existing so is that an illusion? If not it has to have an eternal ontological source.

False. And once you get honest and answer the questions herein, I will prove you wrong(in conjunction with your own statements that already prove you wrong).

Karla said...

BoomSlang “We don't need to believe in "God" for the idea(and fact) that we are imperfect, by nature, to make "sense". "Nature", itself, is imperfect.”


So we agree we are imperfect.


BoomSlang “As far as the Christian biblegod being "Perfect", please---it was "repented" that it made us. That doesn't sound like "Perfection" to me.”

Remember He also said upon creating all of creation, including humanity that what He created was good. He was grieved we made a mess of things. Just as a parent grieves when a child has become wayward and breaks their heart. God’s sadness is a result of how much He loves us and how much it grieves us to go a way that is destructive to us.


Karla: Do you know that you are also giving an apologetic every time you speak in defense of what you hold to be true? The world just means "giving a defense."

BoomSlang “What I "hold to be true" doesn't need a "defense". Nature, exists.”

We agree that nature exist.

BoomSlang “To my knowledge, no human being denies this. So, I don't need to "prove" to anyone that "nature" exists.”

I think there are some eastern religions that just might disagree with that statement.



BoomSlang “ Moreover, my being "Atheist" is not a proclamation that "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!" Again, I lack belief that a "God" exists, which is a view that I will be willing to change, once those who claim that Super-nature is responsible for "nature", can prove it. In the mean time, if I refute your arguments for "Super-nature", that doesn't *necessarily* mean that I am offering a defense of anything that isn't already proven.”

I know, atheists have carefully worded their “non-belief” to avoid any entanglement with positing a positive believe. Still you have a worldview and still you speak from it as if it were true and you do give defense to your position of theists not having adequate proof of the Supernatural.

Karla said...

Karla: To me I am hearing 1) If God didn’t create those who would end up in hell he would not hurt anyone’s free will 2) you state your position was never that God and free will are contradictory then 3) I hear If God knows all things Free will is an illusion and we are puppets not free agents

BoomSlang “And not-too-shockingly, you still cannot repeat my argument back to me in its entirety, without error.”

I could say the same.


BoomSlang “"1" passes. As for "2", you are off the mark. "God" and "free will" are only "contradictory" if "God" is claimed to be "omniscient". “

As to 2, I thought we have been discussing an omniscient omnipotent God all along.

BoomSlang “ in other words, if you will concede that your biblegod can't and doesn't know the future, and in which case, it couldn't do things like "Prophesy" this, that, and the other thing, then we can drop this particular issue. “

I do not concede, for an eternal perfect being would be omni-present which would make Him omniscient for He sees all things.

Boomslang “As for "3", yes, if "God" knows the future, then the future is fixed, in which case, our choices(and its own) are solidified, and thus, our "free will" is an illusion.”

If we agree He doesn’t cause our actions that He isn’t the puppeteer then I do not see how free will is an illusion. He is simply seeing the whole story from beginning to end—like watching a movie. He didn’t make us do anything, He just sees it.


BoomSlang “ *However*, this does NOT necessarily mean that "God", itself, "removes free will"(as you previously said that I said). The mutual incompatibility of the concepts of "omniscience" and "omnipotence", themselves, make "free will" impossible. “”

You are saying we never had it in the first place, so He didn’t remove something impossible for us to have. But that is the same to me as saying God never provided us with free will.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “This is the same defense we hear everytime that Christians go on damage control in the wake of their religious leader's idiotic comments. But to give benefit of the doubt---even if they *did* swear "allegiance to the Devil", they are presumably going to spend eternity being tortured in "Hell", right? If so, then is it really necessary that people, including women and children, drown and have buildings fall on top of them? What?....this is Jesus' way of "priming them" for what's about to come, or something?”

Nope. It is very likely just a course of nature. However, when someone tangles with the devil, the devil doesn’t do good things for them; he is a tormentor and a deceiver and he doesn’t treat those well who choose to follow him. That’s all that was meant, not that the people deserved any of this, or that God caused it, or anything like that. Even now Operation Blessing is expending millions of dollars in relief efforts in Haiti.

Just so you know, I aim to speak well of people even when I disagree with them. So I am not one to barrage someone with words of contempt no matter who they are and what they said.

BoomSlang “And repeat: If "good" is "rooted" in your biblegod, then said being can command ANYTHING it feels like commanding, because it is NOT dependent on any external standard of "good". BTW, you said "eternal", as in forever, so again, I will post the same question that you previously ignored:”


And I repeat that what He wants, feels, does is completely in line with His good nature which is the standard of goodness. Because one acts, feels, wants, desires, does out of that inner reality of their nature. His nature is good, so all that follows is good, not arbitrarily so, but absolutely thus.


Previously, me, to Karla:

"Let's be sure---is it 'Good' if 'God' commanded parents and teachers to pelt kids with rocks when they misbehave? To be clear, that is, THROWING ROCKS AT THEM. Yes, or no? You can't say that 'God' would never give that command, so don't try that apologetic with me. So...yes, or no? Is bludgeoning defiant children with rocks 'Good'?"


I would be happy to deal with this question when we first determine the standard of good by which to judge this situation.

That's why I asked to to read the latest post because I think it will help us in our discussions.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Burning "witches"(human beings) has not always been considered "wrong". In fact, not long ago, it was considered the "moral" and "right" thing to do.”

I’m sure much of culture of that day thought it to be wrong too. Even if an entire culture thinks burning witches to be right, doesn’t mean it really is right.


BoomSlang “So, Karla, is it "essentially" not "wrong" to burn people alive, since, in our "culture" we have laws against setting people on fire, and these laws are "provisional"???? Yes, or no?”

I see laws that govern a culture as dependent upon the actuality of a thing being truly right or wrong. It was wrong to burn witches two hundred years ago and it is still wrong.


BoomSlang “If it's "wrong", how do we know it's "wrong", if this practice was once the "moral" and "right" thing to do?”

That’s what I was asking you. Is there a standard or isn’t there? If the standard is provisional upon the culture living at the time, then you have no grounds to ever see another culture’s actions as immoral in their day. Hitler is then exonerated.


BoomSlang “How about this: If killing those who would lead you away from "Christ" was once encouraged and considered "morally" acceptable(Deut), why isn't it considered acceptable now, and *how* do we know it isn't acceptable now?”

That was never something condoned by Jesus. Just because professing Christians have done it, doesn’t make it right.


BoomSlang “Yes, and you had it right in your rendition of the latter choice, that is, until you got to your fallacious conclusion.”

I stand by my conclusion. I don’t see how a culture can define something as essentially wrong, only provisionally wrong for a time, generation, and boundaries of that culture. Thus we have no right to say that terrorism against America is wrong because Americans believe it to be wrong, We have no right to go fight a war against terror in a nation that thinks it’s right unless there is a standard higher than the values of each culture that we appeal to that governs both societies whether they believe so or not.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: So we agree we are imperfect.

Yes, but I hardly call that progess. We don't agree on why, so...

Karla: Remember He also said upon creating all of creation, including humanity that what He created was good.

Yet, as I've mentioned a few dozen times, "He" had the wherewithal to foresee that "what He created" would be a disappointment, but yet, "created" anyway, thus, "He" must ultimately take responsibility. No matter how much I want my tollhouse cookies to turn out "good", if I know that my oven is stuck on 550 degrees, but I bake cookies anyway, then logic and reason say that >>> I <<< am utlimately responsible for the undesired result---not the oven; not the cookie dough; not the timer. I, the "baker", am responsible.

Karla: He was grieved we made a mess of things.

Yes, "grieved", which holds a self-evident negative connotation, and thus, it is not what we'd expect from a "Perfect" being. Perhaps you'd like to redefine "Perfect" to mean something else, though. It wouldn't surprise me.

Karla: Just as a parent grieves when a child has become wayward and breaks their heart.

Severely lacking analogy. For one, a "parent" isn't omniscient or omnipotent, nor are they Perfect. Further, most parents I know don't physically torture their children when/if said children fail to meet their expectations, even if it's the child's own doing.

Karla: God’s sadness is a result of how much He loves us and how much it grieves us to go a way that is destructive to us.

Honestly, I've lost count of the times that you've said the same thing, or something similar, over and over and over. It is clear to me that you simply have zero intention of being honest. A pitty, yet, I have to remember that you are a victim, just like I was once a victim, of being indoctrinated(i.e..brainwashed) with the family belief system---in our case, "Christianity".

Karla, "Perfect" beings don't mope around feeling "sad", "grieved", and "repented". You are simply self-projecting (as your biblegod), while ignoring the BLATANT inconsistancies within your adopted religious beliefs. This is precisely why you, as a victim, need "apologetics"..i.e..to make "sense" out of nonsense.

Karla: I know, atheists have carefully worded their “non-belief” to avoid any entanglement with positing a positive believe.

It's not "careful wording" in an attempt to be equivocal, and you'll get nowhere, fast, making such insinuations. Let me try to help you with this yet once more.

Here is a statement: "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!"

Karla, I don't *believe* that statement. 'Know why? Because if I *did* believe it, then I would be proclaiming to know that a "God" does not/cannot exist, when that is intellectually dishonest, because perhaps some generic, unknowable, undefinable, god exists. Karla, "God" is an unfalsifible concept.

The Christian biblegod, on the other hand, is another story altogether, because the attributes assigned to it(by the bible's Bronze-aged redactors) are MUTALLY INCOMPATIBLE. For instance, "omniscience" and "omnipotence".(which you are content to keep ignoring)

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Still you have a worldview and still you speak from it as if it were true and you do give defense to your position of theists not having adequate proof of the Supernatural.

Like I said before, I don't *need* a "defense" of what is already evident..i.e..existence, exists; nature, exists. A position of neutrality doesn't *need* a "defense". I'm not saying that invisible, conscious beings are "disproven"---I'm saying that they are UNproven. Please do yourself, and any Atheist vistors a favor, and LEARN the difference between the two.

Me, previously: “And not-too-shockingly, you still cannot repeat my argument back to me in its entirety, without error.”

Karla attempts...I could say the same.

Really?!?!?! So, would you kindly clarify for your readership once and for all? Is your biblegod both "omniscient" and "omnipotent", or not? If you answer "yes", then this illustrates to your readership that, yes, I've been repeating your position back accurately. I await your answer, and I won't go further until you answer this question, and the following one:

Me, three times now...

"Let's be sure---is it 'Good' if 'God' commanded parents and teachers to pelt kids with rocks when they misbehave? To be clear, that is, THROWING ROCKS AT THEM. Yes, or no? You can't say that 'God' would never give that command, so don't try that apologetic with me. So...yes, or no? Is bludgeoning defiant children with rocks 'Good'?"

You...I would be happy to deal with this question when we first determine the standard of good by which to judge this situation.

GOOD GRIEF!!! It's a hypothetical, multiple-choice question, and your attemtping to evade this very basic, pertinent question is simply appalling. We are trying to establish a truth here, and you are asking me to establish this "truth" before you will answer. 'See the problem with that? Let me simplify it for you, because I believe you owe your readership an answer:

If "God", HYPOTHETICALLY, were to make a law stating that it's acceptable to line defiant young adults up and throw rocks at them, would you view this as...

a) *"acceptable", and a law that you would follow

or...

b) "not acceptable", a law that you would not follow

a?..or b?, and yes, or no, to the above.

*Note: If it's "not acceptable", then by implication, it can't be "good".

boomSLANG said...

Karla: It was wrong to burn witches two hundred years ago and it is still wrong.

Was it "wrong" two thousand years ago? If we take the following verses at their face-value, we see that it was clearly not "wrong", and in fact, encouraged....

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." ~ Exodus 22:18[bold added]

"There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." ~ Deuteronomy 18:10[bold added]

Me, previously: "If [burning witches alive is] 'wrong', how do we know it's 'wrong', if this practice was once the 'moral' and 'right' thing to do?"

You respond...That’s what I was asking you. Is there a standard or isn’t there?

Karla, obstinance isn't working for you. I've delineated my position, CLEARLY, numerous times now, and I'll repeat it again, hopefully, for your benefit. I implore you to pay very close attention.

Once and for all, my position is this:

There is no objective "standard" for "good". MORAL OBJECTIVISM does NOT exist, thus, there is no objective, universal, absolute "standard" of "good", "right", and "moral". So, please-oh-please, STOP ASKING ME TO PROVIDE ONE!!!!!!!

YOU, Karla, are the one arguing for an objective, universal, absolute "Standard". YOU, Karla, are the one saying, "God doesn't change", yada, yada. And again, both arguments are DEMONSTRABLY false.

For instance, the bible is replete with all sorts of heinous, inhumane, harm-causing rituals, practices, codes, laws, commands, etc., that, in the context of the year 2010, are not practiced/sanctioned. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

- Punishing defiant young adults by THROWING ROCKS AT THEM

- KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin

- Dashing your enemy's children AGAINST ROCKS(and feeling "blessed" to do so, no less)

- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from "the LORD", even FAMILY MEMBERS

Karla, if you will comply by just answering the following multiple-choice question(the same one you've previously ignored), we can then move forward.

Here is the question(similar to the one you previously ignored):

Are any or all of the above-mentioned, biblically-supported practices deemed acceptable, and thus "good", today in the USA, a supposed "Christian Nation"???

a) Yes

b) No

If "no", then we must ask, "why not?"

I propose the answer to this is because, we, as a civilized, educated society, agree that these practices are inhumane, because they cause human beings suffering and unnecessary harm, and they infringe on people's right to pursue happiness.

If you answer "no", above, but disagree with my previous explanation, then please elaborate.

boomSLANG said...

Karla continues...If the standard is provisional upon the culture living at the time, then you have no grounds to ever see another culture’s actions as immoral in their day. Hitler is then exonerated.

'Ridiculous. The "grounds" by which I can say the wholesale slaughtering of entire races of people is "immoral", is the same "grounds" by which YOU can say it's "immoral". In fact, your biblegod is a perfect example of someone who saw fit to slaughter people because they were presumably inferior in some way. Hello? Hilter?

To be clear, you can't use your bible as "grounds" to say the Nazi's actions were "immoral" in "their day", and thus, you're left having to account for why such slaughtering is "immoral". If you say, "Well, God can do it because he's God!!!!", then you underscore what I've been contending all long: "God" can command ANYTHING it wants, even if it's something that would be considered "immoral" if we did it, and believers must see it as "moral".

So, you're in the same quandry you've been in.

Karla: [killing nonbelievers] was never something condoned by Jesus.

Oh, good grief. Really? Are you seriously going to attempt such an unconvincing, blantantly predictable apologetic? Are the contents of the bible the "Word of God", or not???? If only "some" of it is - and since "Jesus" wrote NONE of it - then it becomes one giant, subjective "grab-bag".

No matter how you answer--if the Deuteronomy passage in question doesn't belong there, and/or, if it is inapplicable/obsolete, then the bible clearly contains erroneous information, thus, there goes your "inerrant bible" argument.

Me, previously: "Yes, and you had it right in your rendition of the latter choice, that is, until you got to your fallacious conclusion."

Karla: I stand by my conclusion.

Yes, of course....standing by a false conclusion. Thank you for illustrating for your readership what is means to harbor a religious conviction. But again, we need to consider that you are a victim, which is admittedly very hard to do at times.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “There is no objective "standard" for "good". MORAL OBJECTIVISM does NOT exist, thus, there is no objective, universal, absolute "standard" of "good", "right", and "moral". So, please-oh-please, STOP ASKING ME TO PROVIDE ONE!!!!!!!”



I have not yet heard you say that so clearly. I thought that was your position, but I had not read it clearly stated and I did not want to assume it.


BoomSlang “YOU, Karla, are the one arguing for an objective, universal, absolute "Standard". YOU, Karla, are the one saying, "God doesn't change", yada, yada. And again, both arguments are DEMONSTRABLY false.”


Yes, I am arguing that there is such a standard and that is universal. Not a universal set of laws, but a universal standard of good rooted in the nature of God.



BoomSlang “For instance, the bible is replete with all sorts of heinous, inhumane, harm-causing rituals, practices, codes, laws, commands, etc., that, in the context of the year 2010, are not practiced/sanctioned. These include, but are not limited to, the following:”


Here is where I am seeing logical inconsistencies. If there is no standard, that is universal for what is good and right as you have clearly stated above how are these actions judged to be not good?

Karla said...

BoomSlang “ I propose the answer to this is because, we, as a civilized, educated society, agree that these practices are inhumane, because they cause human beings suffering and unnecessary harm, and they infringe on people's right to pursue happiness. “


If this is how it is judged to not be good, then how do we determine that what is good and right is that “no suffering and unnecessary harm be incurred?” And where do people get the right to pursue happiness?

boomSLANG said...

Me: "YOU, Karla, are the one arguing for an objective, universal, absolute 'Standard'. YOU, Karla, are the one saying, 'God doesn't change', yada, yada. And again, both arguments are DEMONSTRABLY false."

Karla: Yes, I am arguing that there is such a standard and that is universal. Not a universal set of laws, but a universal standard of good rooted in the nature of God.

If you are content evading the direct question proposed to you by simply regurgitating what you believe over, and over, and over, ad nauseam, then I suppose I'll be content to give the same refutations over and over.

With that said, if "God" adheres to no external standard of "good", then whatever "God" commands is pure OPINION. Thus, in this situation, if you're going to follow "God", YOU THEN HAVE NO FRAME OF REFERENCE TO DETERMINE IF WHAT THIS "GOD" IS COMMANDING is actually "good", or "harmful"!!!!!

This brings me to the same question I've asked over and over and over---the one that keeps getting ignored. Well, there's a good reason it keeps getting ignored, and Karla, you know that reason. I'll keep posting the question, and perhaps you'll feel inclined to get honest one of these days.

Here we go....

(posted previously)

"...the bible is replete with all sorts of heinous, inhumane, harm-causing rituals, practices, codes, laws, commands, etc., that, in the context of the year 2010, are not practiced/sanctioned. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

- Punishing defiant young adults by THROWING ROCKS AT THEM

- KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin

- Dashing your enemy's children AGAINST ROCKS(and feeling 'blessed' to do so, no less)

- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from 'the LORD', even FAMILY MEMBERS

Karla, if you will comply by just answering the following multiple-choice question(the same one you've previously ignored), we can then move forward.

Here is the question(similar to the one you previously ignored):

Are any or all of the above-mentioned, biblically-supported practices deemed acceptable, and thus 'good', today in the USA, a supposed 'Christian Nation'???

a) Yes

b) No


Well, Karla???

boomSLANG said...

Continues...Here is where I am seeing logical inconsistencies. If there is no standard, that is universal for what is good and right as you have clearly stated above how are these actions judged to be not good?

Because, again, in our society, in this day and age, we(INCLUDING YOU, Karla) agree that those actions are barbaric, out-moded, despicably inhumane, and cause unnecessary harm to human beings, which would explain, perfectly, WHY THOSE THINGS ARE NO LONGER PRACTICED here!!!!! It would also explain, perfectly, why you keep ignoring the question.

BTW, just because there is no "universal standard" among cultures, that doesn't mean that we, in the US, are devoid of a functioning, practical standard. Moreover, just because you choose to live here doesn't mean that you have to agree with the current standard. If you feel compelled to throw rocks at people who work on "the Sabbath", then by all means!...do it, and see what happens! If your Muslim neighbor angers you, simply dash their child against rocks, and see what happens!!! If you bump into an Atheist at McDonald's, KILL THEM....AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!!

Karla: If this is how it is judged to not be good, then how do we determine that what is good and right is that “no suffering and unnecessary harm be incurred?

It's called common sense. "Common sense" says that Karla doesn't want to be robbed, killed, lied to, screwed-around on, raped, stoned, and on and on, with things that cause DISCOMFORT, so in turn, you know that others don't want those things, either. 'Heard of empathy?

BTW, for those people who are amoral(those who lack common sense, and/or, just don't care), we have drugs and mental wards.

Karla: And where do people get the right to pursue happiness?

Um, the Declaration of Independence? Yes, three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My goodness, if pursuing happiness sounds like a bad idea, just remember you have the right to go live elsewhere! That's the beauty of freedom!

Karla said...

Boom "Because, again, in our society, in this day and age, we(INCLUDING YOU, Karla) agree that those actions are barbaric, out-moded, despicably inhumane, and cause unnecessary harm to human beings, which would explain, perfectly, WHY THOSE THINGS ARE NO LONGER PRACTICED here!!!!! It would also explain, perfectly, why you keep ignoring the question."

They aren't wrong because we agree they are, but they would only be wrong if they really are wrong, if they defy the good.

The reason I do not answer your question is because we do not have agreement on there being a good. My answer would only make sense in the context of an eternal absolute good.

I think there is a place for evil (non-good) to be reckoned with severely and justly and to do so is good. There can be just reasons for taking of a life or the causing of pain and suffering. But our ability to do that as humans is very limited because we are not fully good and fully just and we will not exact justice rightly and must have very careful checks and balances to the justice we employ. We, unlike Israel of old, do not live in a theocracy.



Boom "BTW, just because there is no "universal standard" among cultures, that doesn't mean that we, in the US, are devoid of a functioning, practical standard."


That's just it, the American law is based on the idea of there being a universal natural law. A greater good that our laws ought to reflect. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government from which the Constitution and Declaration was heavily drawn from.

The Founders saw it right to pull away from the Crown because the Crown usurped their God given rights as free people and they set out to design a government that would take into account a greater good than that which the government sets forth and that that good, hence God would be sovereign over the government -- not as a theocracy, but still in principal as a nation whose people are free because God gives that freedom not because the government grants it.


Boom "Moreover, just because you choose to live here doesn't mean that you have to agree with the current standard. If you feel compelled to throw rocks at people who work on "the Sabbath", then by all means!...do it, and see what happens! If your Muslim neighbor angers you, simply dash their child against rocks, and see what happens!!! If you bump into an Atheist at McDonald's, KILL THEM....AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!!"


I don't see something as good because it keeps me out of jail. If the government passed a law that said meeting with other Christians was illegal, I would still do it. If the law of the land said I couldn't own a Bible, I still would. If it said I had to abort my third child, I would not. If it said I had to kill my grandmother because she was a burden to society, I would not. If that meant going to jail, so be it. There is a good that our laws ought to be compared to and if they are found unjust they ought not to be followed even if the government will send that person to jail or worse. Socrates understood that. He met his death because he refused to submit to the law of the land because he saw a greater good that he was submitting to and chose to die rather than to submit to a lesser law.

Karla said...

Boom "It's called common sense. "Common sense" says that Karla doesn't want to be robbed, killed, lied to, screwed-around on, raped, stoned, and on and on, with things that cause DISCOMFORT, so in turn, you know that others don't want those things, either. 'Heard of empathy?"

Have you much familiarity with other cultures? Our laws are rather unique to the western world which was based on the idea of a higher good by which our laws ought to be reflecting. Not so in places like India, or China, or Japan, or Africa. Such things as we consider to be basic common knowledge are not practiced or even known in their culture. I think many take our American morality for granted and forget its roots because the roots have long since been excluded from common education.



Boom "BTW, for those people who are amoral(those who lack common sense, and/or, just don't care), we have drugs and mental wards."

So those people who the majority deem to not be moral.



Boom "Um, the Declaration of Independence? Yes, three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."


You should read it all the way through. And then read some John Locke. Those rights were not given by the Declaration, only reiterated in the Declaration as rights already self-evident in a society that was very much Christianized. The Declaration wasn't granting them, but asserting they were already given to us and thus are grounds by which to pull out from the tyranny of the British crown.






Boom "My goodness, if pursuing happiness sounds like a bad idea, just remember you have the right to go live elsewhere! That's the beauty of freedom"

I think America enjoys a freedom not matched by any nation. Though I think times are changing to make us more like other nations. But whatever the culture says is right, I guess we have no universal grounds to stand up for freedom anymore. . . I wonder how long freedom will continue in a nation on the path of secularism.

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "Because, again, in our society, in this day and age, we(INCLUDING YOU, Karla) agree that those actions are barbaric, out-moded, despicably inhumane, and cause unnecessary harm to human beings, which would explain, perfectly, WHY THOSE THINGS ARE NO LONGER PRACTICED here!!!!! It would also explain, perfectly, why you keep ignoring the question."

Karla responds...They aren't wrong because we agree they are.....

Notice, I didn't say, nor did I imply, that those practices/rituals are "wrong because we agree they are"[bold added]

continues...but they would only be wrong if they really are wrong...

Redundant nonsense in an attempt to equivocate. AKA, deliberate dishonesty.

continues...[they would only be wrong] if they defy the good.

Let's try this: Why do you propose that the practices/rituals I previously mentioned are no longer practiced in America, a supposed "Christian Nation", in the year 2010? To be clear, here are those previously-mentioned practices/rituals:

- Punishing defiant young adults by THROWING ROCKS AT THEM

- KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin

- Dashing your enemy's children AGAINST ROCKS(and feeling 'blessed' to do so, no less)

- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from 'the LORD', even FAMILY MEMBERS


Karla, what is the best answer...

a) because said practices/rituals are wrong(not "good"/not acceptable) in our society

b) those practices/rituals really aren't wrong at all, it's just a big coincidence that we don't do those things anymore

c) other

If "c", please explain why you think we don't employ those practices/rituals anymore(or if you know of somewhere in the U.S. that it's still being done, please provide a source)

Karla: The reason I do not answer your question is because we do not have agreement on there being a good.

No. The reason you do not answer is because you know you have a serious quagmire on your hands. Notwithstanding, if you'd kindly answer the above question, a, b, or c, you will prove my point a different way.

Karla: My answer would only make sense in the context of an eternal absolute good.

Okay, fine. For sake of argument, an "eternal absolute good" exists, and we most certainly get it from "Yahweh".

Now, PLEASE answer the question. Are the previously-mentioned practices/rituals, above(in bold), "good"?

Yes, or no?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: There can be just reasons for taking of a life or the causing of pain and suffering.

Yes, yes...we "get it", Karla---you believe human suffering is "Just", so long as it's your biblegod carrying out the "Justice". Otherwise, you fully realize that intentional human suffering is not a "good" thing. This is why superstitious, unfalsifiable beliefs held on "faith" are dangerous, and why your biblegod should be denounced(if it actually existed).

Karla: But our ability to do that as humans is very limited because we are not fully good and fully just and we will not exact justice rightly and must have very careful checks and balances to the justice we employ.

Again, our system of "justice" is better, more fair, and more "moral" than ANYTHING found in your bible. Do you think we haven't been "careful" enough in deciding to have two categories of charges? i.e..felony and misdemeanor? Is that a "careless" idea, Karla?

How about this: Do you think 3 and 4 yr-old children who shoplift should be prosecuted the same as adults who shoplift? Do you seriously expect a child to have the same comprehensive understanding of "right" and "wrong" as an adult?

If you answer "no", then why is it that you support the absurd notion that non-adults - infants, to toddlers, to children - are guilty of being "sinners"???? To compound the absurdity, in your holy book the infamous garden-duo, "Adam & Eve", hadn't even eaten of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" yet, and they, too, were expected to know "right" from "wrong".

This is why I find the religious philosophies that you espouse to be un-believable.

Karla: We, unlike Israel of old, do not live in a theocracy.

Because of our constitution prohibiting it(thank Zeus!)

Karla: The Founders saw it right to pull away from the Crown because the Crown usurped their God given rights as free people and they set out to design a government that would take into account a greater good than that which the government sets forth and that that good, hence God would be sovereign over the government -- not as a theocracy, but still in principal as a nation whose people are free because God gives that freedom not because the government grants it.

Absurd. There is not one scrap of evidence that our "rights" and "freedom" come from an invisible overseer in the sky.

Karla: Our laws are rather unique to the western world which was based on the idea of a higher good by which our laws ought to be reflecting. Not so in places like India, or China, or Japan, or Africa. Such things as we consider to be basic common knowledge are not practiced or even known in their culture.

Have you seen me use the term "cultural relativity"? If not, you haven't been paying attention. In other words, I fully "get" and concede that we have a "higher good" than most countries. I do not, however, concede that this is because we follow the "morality" delineated in the bible. Utter, complete poppycock.

We are more civilized and have a "higher good" because we actually respect humanity. Conversely, your bible is chock-full of disrespect for humanity.

Me: "BTW, for those people who are amoral(those who lack common sense, and/or, just don't care), we have drugs and mental wards."

Karla: So those people who the majority deem to not be moral.

NO---those people whom trained professionals have determined have no "morals", and are incapable of empathy. An "amoral" person is not the same as an "immoral" person.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You should read it all the way through. And then read some John Locke.

Let's say I read it "all the way through", and then read the work of "John Locke", who I'll 'go out on a limb' and guess is a Christian.

Okay, there is a good reason that our forefathers made sure there was a "church/state" separation. The end.

Karla: I wonder how long freedom will continue in a nation on the path of secularism.

Such an ignorant statement is not even worthy of refutation.

Karla said...

BoomSlang "Have you seen me use the term "cultural relativity"? If not, you haven't been paying attention."

I have seen that you see morality as culturally determined.

Boom "In other words, I fully "get" and concede that we have a "higher good" than most countries."

How is that concession possible? How can "higher" or "better" be established if there is no universal measuring stick by which to determine it?



Boom "I do not, however, concede that this is because we follow the "morality" delineated in the bible. Utter, complete poppycock."

You would have to study the philosophical roots of various cultures to determine that.


BoomSlang "We are more civilized and have a "higher good" because we actually respect humanity. Conversely, your bible is chock-full of disrespect for humanity."

What in your view distinguishes humans from animals?

We disagree on the value of humanity in the Bible.

boomSLANG said...

Dear Karla,

Before we can procede(assuming you want to procede), you'll need to please answer the aforementioned questions in my previous post(s). These questions are delineated, clearly(and are even multiple choice), and they are highly pertinent to the issue at hand.

Karla said...

What is your source for this


"- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from 'the LORD', even FAMILY MEMBERS"

or this

" KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin"

or even the others. . .

boomSLANG said...

Karla: What is your source for this

"- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from 'the LORD', even FAMILY MEMBERS"

or this

" KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin"


Again, please answer the question, "yes", or "no", and *then* we can discuss sources. In other words, if, HYPOTHETICALLY, the "source" for the policies/commands that follow was "God", would said policies/commands be "good"?

- Punishing defiant young adults by THROWING ROCKS AT THEM

- KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin

- Dashing your enemy's children AGAINST ROCKS(and feeling 'blessed' to do so, no less)

- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from 'the LORD', even FAMILY MEMBERS


Yes, or no, please.

And BTW, if "God" would never command such things, then you should have no problem simply answering the question.

Karla said...

I do not think these are things we ought to do.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I do not think these are things we ought to do.

To be clear, since we ought not do said things, then said things are not "good"?

a) correct

b) incorrect

Karla said...

I need the context to answer further.

boomSLANG said...

I need the context to answer further.

Please stop being obstinate. Use the same "context" by which you can say....

"I do not think these are things we ought to do." ~ Karla

Karla said...

- Punishing defiant young adults by THROWING ROCKS AT THEM


I assume here you are referring to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If these sons were drunkards and profligates/gluttons as is the context, they were not children. They were men. This was the law given by God for the Israelites and it was good. The law is now not in effect anymore as it has served its purpose and has been done away with by Jesus. So it would not now be a thing one should practice.


- KILLING any women who weds, who can be proven to not be a virgin


This one is also the law in Deuteronomy 22 (see what I said above). The law is not in effect today, so the punishments of that day are no longer valid today. Not because fornication is any less wrong, but because Jesus fulfillment of the law changed how people today ought to respond to these things.


- Dashing your enemy's children AGAINST ROCKS(and feeling 'blessed' to do so, no less)


Again the same answer.



- KILLING any person who would lead a Christian away from 'the LORD', even FAMILY MEMBERS


This I have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you get this from? Did you mean “Jews” not “Christians”?

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I assume here you are referring to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If these sons were drunkards and profligates/gluttons as is the context, they were not children.

Yes, that would be the verse, and yes, as I expected, you offer a bloated rationalization in an attempt to reconcile the abhorent "morality" and supposed "absolute good" in your bible..i.e.."They were men"(not children)

continues...This was the law given by God for the Israelites and it was good.

It "was good", implying, it no longer is, and in which case, it cannot be the "absolute" type of "good" you've been extolling/promoting here.

To be sure, if your biblegod reinstated the "kill intoxicated people by bludgeoning them to death with rocks" policy, should we, as Americans, do it? Yes, or no?

continues...The law is now not in effect anymore..

Thank you, and thus, not "absolute".

continues...... it has served its purpose and has been done away with by Jesus.

So, it was "good" for a specific people at a specific time..i.e..a few thousands years ago, for the "Israelites". I guess that would explain why we don't kill people who pick up sticks, or do other types of work, on "the Sabbath", right? Oops, 'there goes the rest of the "Commandments", too.

continues....So it would not now be a thing one should practice.

Right, 'not applicable to all human beings, but only to one specific blood-line. But even today, in 2010, no longer applicable or "good" for the blood-line in question, or for any other human being, for that matter. 'Very revealing.

So, in conclusion, this is not the "absolute" type of "good" you've been promoting here, since context is evidentally everything. Where Moral Objectivism is true, "context" is irrelevant. Surely you see the problem.(well, probably not)

Karla said...

Boom, and that's why I didn't want to answer you. We haven't established an understanding of "good" yet in order for what I said to have context. I wanted to wait, not because I was afraid of the question, but because my answer is irrelevant until a context is established.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Boom, and that's why I didn't want to answer you. We haven't established an understanding of "good" yet in order for what I said to have context.

Dear Karla,

Where "good" comes from and what it's based on is the VERY THING WE ARE DEBATING. Unless you've drastically changed your position, I understand you to be arguing *FOR* "Moral Objectivism", a "Universal" that you posit is based on an "Absolute good", which you posit comes from "God"(biblegod).

Now, is that an accurate assessment? Yes, or no?

If "yes", then by definition, "context" DOES. NOT. MATTER; it is immaterial. In other words, it would ALWAYS be "immoral" to tell a lie, regardless of the context. Yet, sane, intelligent people know that it is sometimes "right" to be deliberately deceitful(to lie), *if* IT PREVENTS UNNECESSARY HARM to other human beings.

You know this, too.... yet, the idea is in direct conflict with your worldview. This is precisely why this conversation gets so convoluted. You are simply wrong, but instead of conceding, you perpetually defend the indefensible.