A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Re-read my post. If a Christian believes that they are filled with the Holy
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 ...[text shortened]... ess and active compassion, not abject grovelling about
what piles of crap they are.

Nemesio

Indeed you are right when you say:
“…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…”

But you again misrepresent my meaning when you add:

“not abject grovelling about what piles of crap they are.”

As I said (twice before), God places us above the angels.

I think you are reacting to some perceived problem you have with Reformed Theology. That’s fine, but we are getting further off topic. The point I was making is we are in no position to dictate to God what is good and how God should act. God, again by his grace, tells us what is good and right.

Originally posted by Coletti
Indeed you are right when you say:
“…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…”

But you again misrepresent my meaning when you add:

[i]“not abject grovelling abou ...[text shortened]... hat is good and how God should act. God, again by his grace, tells us what is good and right.

"God, again by his grace, tells us what is good and right."
No, God doesn't tell us that. Only we humans tell that to each other...

Otto

Originally posted by Quirine
"God, again by his grace, tells us what is good and right."
No, God doesn't tell us that. Only we humans tell that to each other...

Otto

Oh?😲 I stand corrected. Thanks for straightening me out.😛

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"?

It's the same as a father telling his 4-year old son, "Do not touch the matchbox". No, God is not bound by His Commandments.

Originally posted by Coletti
Oh?😲 I stand corrected. Thanks for straightening me out.😛

Some more explanation then on my view:

God cares? Yes I do think so.
God is compassionate? Yes I do think so.
He cares for all that is. In fact he is all and allis him. He makes no judgement to what is better or worse in any way, this also means he does not define what is good and what is bad.

That's what I think

Edit: Bbarr: I clearly reject your definition of God, in that God does choose the lesser of evils (premisse 2 I believe it was): he does not choose at all

Originally posted by Quirine
Some more explanation then on my view:

God cares? Yes I do think so.
God is compassionate? Yes I do think so.
He cares for all that is. In fact he is all and allis him. He makes no judgement to what is better or worse in any way, this also means he does not define what is good and what is bad.

That's what I think

Edit: Bbarr: I clearly reject you ...[text shortened]... hat God does choose the lesser of evils (premisse 2 I believe it was): he does not choose at all

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

Hmm, my memory of premisse 2 was not very good :-)

Originally posted by Quirine
Some more explanation then on my view:

God cares? Yes I do think so.
God is compassionate? Yes I do think so.
He cares for all that is. In fact he is all and allis him. He makes no judgement to what is better or worse in any way, this also means he does not define what is good and what is bad.

That's what I think

Edit: Bbarr: I clearly reject you ...[text shortened]... hat God does choose the lesser of evils (premisse 2 I believe it was): he does not choose at all

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

In my view God is not morally perfect. As I said, I believe God does not define good and bad in any way and therefor does not act accordingly.

So for me this discussion has little value I suppose since my definition of God is different.

Otto

Originally posted by Coletti
The point I was making is we are in no position to dictate to God what is good and how God should act. God, again by his grace, tells us what is good and right.

Does a theist have a right to demand something of God?

Of course not.

Does a theist have a right to expect something that God promised (that He
loves His creation)?

Absolutely. If theists did not trust that God would keep His Word (i.e., have
faith), then why bother? Theists do indeed have a right to expect that
God would keep His promise. It may be a gift of which they are unworthy,
but it is a promised gift.

Unless it is permissible for God to be a liar. Is this permissble, Coletti? Since
God is not beholden to any Commandments given to His creation, and since one
of these Commandments is not to bear false witness, would you say that it
would be perfectly consistent with your theories about God to deny True Christians
admission into heaven?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Does a theist have a right to demand something of God?

Of course not.

Does a theist have a right to expect something that God promised (that He
loves His creation)?

Absolutely. If theists did not trust that God would keep His Word (i.e., have
faith), then why bother? Theists do indeed have a right to expect that
God would keep His promis ...[text shortened]... nsistent with your theories about God to deny True Christians
admission into heaven?

Nemesio

We are the objects of the commands God gave. But there are restriction on God also. God does not operate against his own nature. And God is not mutable. God keeps his promises. Not because of the commandments he gave us, but because God says his word is true.

I've never questioned God promises. So I don't know where this is coming from. I must have inadvertently put a bee up your bonnet.

Originally posted by Coletti
We are the objects of the commands God gave. But there are restriction on God also. God does not operate against his own nature. And God is not mutable. God keeps his promises. Not because of the commandments he gave us, but because God says his word is true.

If God keeps His promises, then we have every right to expect that He will keep
His promises.

You wrote:
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.

As such, this is utterly wrong. God has promised that He loves His children and that
He will give them Eternal Life. Necessarily, this confers infinite worth upon His children,
as His love is all encompassing and perfect. Therfore, it is not a wonder why He doesn't
snuff us out like annoying insects (because He loves His children, as He promised), and
it is fully understandable to expect that God would not only give His children a moment's
thought, but that He will continue to love them with His perfect love.

Having God's love confers infinite worth. His children do not deserve that love, but He
gives it anyway, as He promised. This is why the 'pile of crap' metaphor is utterly
inapplicable in Christian theology. Christians do not have worth by virtue of their
actions, but by virtue of the boundless love with which God loves them.

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.

Omniscient (d ...[text shortened]... ate in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b][/b]

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.


Bingo! Number two here is the false premise.
The very suffering that we all indeed do suffer under (an important point to acknowledge in itself), did actually necessarily follow from the failed choices of Adam and Eve.

Like if your child disobeyed your command to stay out of the street and was hit by a car, he would necessarily be injured.

You are a good parent, the street is a value to you and your family, and your child's freedom to love you wholeheartedly, full of devotion and trust, or to reject your influence in his life and run about carelessly, is a very good thing that you would never take away from him.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If God keeps His promises, then we have every right to expect that He will keep
His promises.

You wrote:
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.

As such, this is utterly wrong. God has promised that He loves His chi ...[text shortened]... ue of their
actions, but by virtue of the boundless love with which God loves them.

Nemesio

You're as dense as a donut Nemesio. I wouldn't mind so much since I agree on 97% of what you said. But you insist on disagreeing with what I never said.

It's fine to disagree with me, but don't disagree with what I never said. Now if my words were not clear, then I am sorry, but if you keep twisting my clear intentions, then you are being disingenuous. So give it a rest.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
God killed. He killed just about everybody in the flood.

The commandment prohibits killing.

If you would, clearly show me the commandment, and how it binds
God from killing?
Kelly

Originally posted by Coletti
You're as dense as a donut Nemesio. I wouldn't mind so much since I agree on 97% of what you said. But you insist on disagreeing with what I never said.

It's fine to disagree with me, but don't disagree with what I never said. Now if my words were not clear, then I am sorry, but if you keep twisting my clear intentions, then you are being disingenuous. So give it a rest.

I disagree with the following statement:

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.

You said it, or someone with your account said it. It and sentiments like it
follow from a self-deprecating theology which is not supported by Christian
Scripture. I have explained why.

These sentences are clear, so either you mispoke or you retract the explicit
sentiments expressed by these sentences.

The density does not reside with me; I've been 100% consistent on the issue.
That you agree with 97% should be enough to make you retract these sentences
and review any philosophy that suggests 'pride and total depravity that is man's
true nature.' Being made in the image of God is not consistent with a theology
based on 'total depravity.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I disagree with the following statement:

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.

You said it, or ...[text shortened]... istent with a theology
based on 'total depravity.'

Nemesio

I said, and you quoted me on this "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." Which you claim to understand and disagree with. OK. (Personally, out of context, I'm not even sure what it means. 😉)


But quoting me does not mean you undertand.

You said:

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.

Clearly not what I said at any time.

And later:

...and you began with the 'Depravity of Man' schtick, that we are so unworthy and that we are piles of crap.

Wrong again for the second time. Apparently, understanding is not your strong point.

Twice you misrepresented my ideas, and claim that I said we are equivalent to piles of crap. Now to do so you had to ignored the following "To paraphrase the apostle Paul, all the good deeds of man are nothing more than a pile of crap."

What I said is the GOOD DEEDS OF MAN ARE EQUIVALENT TO A PILE OF CRAP.

Apparently you missed my point, again, and again, and again. And no amount or repeating it will get through you fluffy-puff-pasty skull. So be it. You are stuck on my "total depravity" shtick.

If you want to argue the merits of "total depravity" - a concept you seem to be unclear on - then start another thread and we can debate it.

Maybe I am being too hard on you. Let me just say that there is no shame in admitting you are wrong, or asking questions when you don't understand something. I don't claim that all my post are perfectly clear so if ever there's anything I can explain, don't hesitate to ask.