Originally posted by robbie carrobieI never claimed to be the 'ultimate source of morality'. You're making it up.
fine you are the ultimate source of morality, greater than God. Congratulations. No doubt your wisdom will span the centuries, your pithy saying fill the earth giving life to all!
Lets test you out, if there was a train on course to cross a ravine where a bridge was bust and you had the opportunity to send your son knowing it would mean his death but the saving of a few passengers would you send him to his death for these strangers?
As for your scenario. I don't have a son, but even if I did I would doubt it very much.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't have a son, but even if I did I would doubt it very much - PK
I never claimed to be the 'ultimate source of morality'. You're making it up.
As for your scenario. I don't have a son, but even if I did I would doubt it very much.
Then you are not as moral as God and you should give up the pretence that you are.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut that was very little sacrifice for God, who (in the story) knew his son would soon be back up on fluffy clouds with Dad for the rest of eternity.
I don't have a son, but even if I did I would doubt it very much - PK
Then you are not as moral as God and you should give up the pretence that you are.
Proper Knob however believes that when his hypothetical son is dead, he really is dead. That is infinitely more of a sacrifice than God allegedly made.
--- Penguin
That's an unfair question you're asking Proper Knob there, Robbie. Bad boy!
The better question would be: "If you would have God's powers, and you could stop the train by waving your magic wand so that no-one would die - including PK's hypothetical son - would you do it?"
The answer of course would be yes, making us all morally superior to that psychopathic mass murderer you pray to.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by PenguinAlso...
But that was very little sacrifice for God, who (in the story) knew his son would soon be back up on fluffy clouds with Dad for the rest of eternity.
Proper Knob however believes that when his hypothetical son is dead, he really is dead. That is infinitely more of a sacrifice than God allegedly made.
--- Penguin
Why is the question about sending his son as opposed to going himself?
Since when did parents have either the power or moral duty to send their
children into harms way rather than go themselves?
Originally posted by Penguinhardly he would not consent to it and he is therefore less moral than God.
But that was very little sacrifice for God, who (in the story) knew his son would soon be back up on fluffy clouds with Dad for the rest of eternity.
Proper Knob however believes that when his hypothetical son is dead, he really is dead. That is infinitely more of a sacrifice than God allegedly made.
--- Penguin
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo its perfectly valid, Jesus himself was a human being, with all the weaknesses of a man, there was no guarantee furnished that Christ would keep his integrity making the above points ludicrous as usual. The fact is that you would not even consent and you are therefore less moral than God and should give up the pretence.
That was such a terrible analogy as has been demonstrated by the posters above me. Would you like to try again?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if you were faced with your own moral dilemma you would SEND your son and not go yourself...
No its perfectly valid, Jesus himself was a human being, with all the weaknesses of a man, there was no guarantee furnished that Christ would keep his integrity making the above points ludicrous as usual. The fact is that you would not even consent and you are therefore less moral than God and should give up the pretence.
And you think WE are less moral?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJesus was resurrected and then ascended back to heaven (allegedly) to 'sit at the right hand of God', your analogy doesn't come close.
No its perfectly valid, Jesus himself was a human being, with all the weaknesses of a man, there was no guarantee furnished that Christ would keep his integrity making the above points ludicrous as usual. the fact is that you would not even consent and you are therefore less moral than God and should give up the pretence.
Besides, as googlefudge pointed out, sending your own son to die is cowardly. Why couldn't God have gone? Come to think of it, this may go some way in explaining the Trinity.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgethe whole scenario has to do with Gods sovereignty that a man, like Adam (in this case Christ) could remain as an integrity keeper despite severe adversity (it answers the allegation that God was a liar raised in the garden of Eden for Adam could have kept his integrity, as proven by Christ, thus God was just in punishing him). Had the most powerful personage in the universe acquiesced to go himself, this would hardly have been a fitting answer to the question of Gods right to rule, would it. Man its like a battle against ignorance, it really is.
Also...
Why is the question about sending his son as opposed to going himself?
Since when did parents have either the power or moral duty to send their
children into harms way rather than go themselves?
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes he was but there was no guarantee that he would keep his integrity and therefore the analogy is absolutely sound, googlefudge doesn't know anything, hes a blind man leading the blind, retract your assertion that you are more moral than God or send your only son.
Jesus was resurrected and then ascended back to heaven (allegedly) to 'sit at the right hand of God', your analogy doesn't come close.
Besides, as googlefudge pointed out, sending your own son to die is cowardly. Why couldn't God have gone? Which may go some way as to explaining the Trinity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour analogy is laughable.
yes he was but there was no guarantee that he would keep his integrity and therefore the analogy is absolutely sound, googlefudge doesn't know anything, hes a blind man leading the blind, retract your assertion that you are more moral than God or send your only son.
Anyhow, even if give you this one, I still haven't killed anyone or instructed others to murder children so we're at 1-1.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobits not laughable, you have been found to be wanting, you must retract your assertion that you are more moral than God. You have no power over life or death so you cannot even begin to juxtapose yourself alongside God in this manner, in order for it to be fair, you would need to have the power of life and death, which you don't. We shall therefore further reduce the deficit: God 1- properknob and the atheist hordes 0
Your analogy is laughable.
Anyhow, even if give you this one, I still haven't killed anyone or instructed others to murder children so we're at 1-1.