01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI disagree. Bbarr's argument would not draw from any particular theology/creation myth.
BBarr: "Premise (2) merely claims that there has occurred at least one event E such that a) E brought about suffering, and b) the suffering E brought about was not logically necessary for the maximization of the good."
That was the "Fall of Men", the Original Sin.
02 Apr 05
I would like to register in this thread as a Christian theist. The following facts about me are relevant:
1) I've never had a class in formal logic.
2) To the best of my ability to judge, Bennett's original argument requires the rejection of one or more of the listed premises.
3) Biting the bullet, I reject premise 2.
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow did God break the sixth commandment?
The Christian God can and does sin.
Consider the flood and the sixth commandment.
Now, if you say that when God breaks his own commandments, He's not really sinning because He's God, then sinning is something that is logically impossible for God, and thus his inability to sin does not take away his omnipotence as defined in the first post. You can't have it both ways.
Kelly
02 Apr 05
4 edits
Originally posted by pcaspianYou silly goose.
Commandments applied to man, surely you couldn't have been confused by this ?
I was addressing the contention that is was logically possible for God to sin, but that he never did.
My point was to show that you can't have it both ways.
You are now saying that it is logically impossible for God to sin, since only man can sin by definition of sin. Before when the idea was introduced that it was logically possible for God to sin, I showed that that presumption led to the finding that God has in fact sinned. You cannot have the best of both worlds.
Either it is logically possible or impossible for him to sin.
If it's possible, then he has.
If it's impossible, then your rebuttal of bbarr's argument is irrelevant, for the logically possible clause in his definition of omnipotent explicitly addresses it.
Dr. S
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by pcaspianAre you claiming that god is not bound by his own commandments, or that his conduct need not mirror the conduct endorsed by his own commandments? Is god free to command man not to kill while still retaining that freedom for himself? If so, how does this impinge upon his supposed claim to "moral perfection"?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]God killed. He killed just about everybody in the flood.
The commandment prohibits killing.
And when God commanded that thou shalt love thy God ?
Commandments applied to man, surely you couldn't have been confused by this ?[/b]
02 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat verse was that? The one where God says "I shall not kill?"
God killed. He killed just about everybody in the flood.
The commandment prohibits killing.
Or was it "We shall not kill?"
I think the problem is simply solved by understanding that the commandments were made by God to man. And it helps to know that God is talking about unwarranted killing, murder, because God does not contradict himself.
All that God does is by definition good. So for God to break his commandment is silly - God does not make the rules for himself, he makes them for us.
It may help to adjust your perspective. Contrast your position to Gods. Imagine God, the creator of the universe, even noticing you. To expect God to even give you a moment's thought is the height of arrogance. That God should not snuff us all out like the annoying insects that we are is a wonder. What can mankind show for itself that it should deserve God to even glance our way? What have we to show for ourselves, to gain favor from the Almighty God and Creator?
Anyone who criticizes God's actions is evidencing the pride and total depravity that is man's true nature. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, all the good deeds of man are nothing more than a pile of crap. Now, scribbles, you are a little flea, amongst billions of fleas, holding up you personal pile of crap, and saying to God, "see, I am worthy or your respect."
But that's OK scribs. We all have our moments of self delusion. I am a flea too, with my pile of crap, often wishing it was worthy. I may think I understand God’s mind a little better than you do. But if I begin to see myself as top flea with the biggest pile of crap, well, it’s not saying much. It's hard to maintain a proper perspective.
[P.S. Upon reading scrib's later post, I see that he was not making the claim God has sinned - but correctly pointing out a logical contradition. However, the rest of my post still stands for anyone who thinks that God does not have the right to take life.]
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiDid Matthew have it wrong then? Did he suffer the same delusions?
Imagine God, the creator of the universe, even noticing you. To expect God to even give you a moment's thought is the height of arrogance.
------------
Matthew 10:30
And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by rwingett
Are you claiming that god is not bound by his own commandments, or that his conduct need not mirror the conduct endorsed by his own commandments? Is god free to command man not to kill while still retaining that freedom for himself? If so, how does this impinge upon his supposed claim to "moral perfection"?
Can you list the 10 commandments and which commandments you would consider applied to both Man and God so we can discuss those ?
eg:
You shall not steal (man=yes, God=yes)
You shall have no other gods before Me. (man=yes, God=no)
Whilst doing this excersize, perhaps you will come to a conclusion yourself, if not we can continue to debate each command point by point.
pc
pc
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMatthew said we are worth more to God than sparrows. That is a matter of relative perspective. He does not address whether we are worthy of God's notice. That God does notice us is purely an act of grace on God's part.
Did Matthew have it wrong then? Did he suffer the same delusions?
------------
Matthew 10:30
And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
You know that perspective is about relative measures. Relative to sparrows, we are more important. But our worth relative to God is miniscule.
God has placed us above the angles. So does that elevate us anywhere near to God's glory.
We are like fleas on an elephant relative to God. To think more of your self relative to God is like pissing into a hurricane.
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiThis sort of old-school Lutheran thinking is not well supported by Scripture.
Matthew said we are worth more to God than sparrows. That is a matter of relative perspective. He does not address whether we are worthy of God's notice. That God does notice us is purely an act of grace on God's part.
You know that perspective is about relative measures. Relative to sparrows, we are more important. But our worth relative to ...[text shortened]... elative to God. To think more of your self relative to God is like pissing into a hurricane.
The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that humankind is made in God's image.
That necessarily means that humankind is higher than crap. Humankind has
the imprint of the Divine as part of his/her essential nature.
The point St Paul, and Jesus, was making is that to think of ourselves as having
worth is an unproductive mode of thinking. It leads to pride, or religious acts
motivated by pride rather than love. That does not mean that humans are without
worth.
Indeed, when Jesus says, 'Love one another as God has loved you,' He is making
an analogy which necessarily confers worth upon His people. He is saying,
that Christians ought to treat people as having the same worth as God sees in them.
Having worth and being unworthy are two different concepts. The premise is that
Grace is something of which Christians are unworthy and cannot do things to deserve.
That does not mean that Christians have no worth, much less that they are fleas on
a turd. No, if Christians are called to live in the image of Christ, then they necessarily
have worth (for, certainly, a Christian would hold that Christ has worth). But, since
Christians cannot live a truely Christian life (for they by necessity sinners), they will
never have the kind of worth that merits salvation (thus the gift of Grace).
I think you are widely mistaken, Coletti, if you believe that, simply because Christians
don't deserve Grace (but get it anyway) they have no worth. The very fact that, within
that tradition, Christians are Graced confers upon them a portion of the Divine, a blessing
of the Holy Spirit. A portion of infinity is infinite. That doesn't mean that Christians
ought to believe that they are gods, but that through the close association with the Divine,
they have the gift of Grace which confers worth.
Nemesio
02 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioRe-read my post. I did not say we have no worth. I said God placed man above angels!
This sort of old-school Lutheran thinking is not well supported by Scripture.
The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that humankind is made in God's image.
That necessarily means that humankind is higher than crap. Humankind has
the imp ...[text shortened]... vine,
they have the gift of Grace which confers worth.
Nemesio
I said RELATIVE to God. What is your worth RELATIVE to God???? Keep a proper perspective.
[I should keep my posts shorter for people's attention spans]
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiRe-read my post. If a Christian believes that they are filled with the Holy
Re-read my post. I did not say we have no worth. I said God placed man above angels!
I said RELATIVE to God. What is your worth RELATIVE to God???? Keep a proper perspective.
[I should keep my posts shorter for people's attention spans]
Spirit, that their very existence is to be an imitator of the Almighty, that
they touch and have been touched by the Divine, they, too, have infinite
worth. Indeed, it seems to be Christian dogma that all the faithful are
precious in the sight of God. If the infinitely worthy finds us precious, then
we do indeed have great worth.
Asking the question, 'What is your worth relative to God' is utterly nonsensical.
It is trying to put God into a framework defined by human terms. It's not
unlike saying 'Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift;' it's just foolishness.
As such, making such comparative statements like 'next to God we are a pile of
crap' is similarly nonsensical.
Christians explicitly believe that they are loved by God, that they are recipients of
God's Grace. This necessarily confers infinite worth.
Refer above and notice who started the comparative statements: you.
DoctorScribbles was making an observation and you began with the 'Depravity of
Man' schtick, that we are so unworthy and that we are piles of crap. This sort of
self-deprication which infects Christianity is contra-Biblical. While Grace is
indeed a gift of which Christians are unworthy, the fact that they receive such a
infinitely magnificent gift ought to be enough to inspire a Christian to be moved
to great loving thankfulness and active compassion, not abject grovelling about
what piles of crap they are.
Nemesio