Originally posted by RJHindsOften in the heat of the moment wrong questions get asked; it's counterproductive to dignify them with answers which will be disruptive and/or ignored. Listening in online public forums has become a lost art. There's more to be learned about someone by their inferences and tone of meaning than this world dreams of or than the semantics of the words they say. In this site public forum, especially, serious inquiry into spiritual matters often involves honest doubt as a going in position (not unlike stubborn Didymus/Thomas during the First Advent of Christ). When expressed, doubt must be allowed to play out. Those seeking truth in an objective conversation must be given opportunity to follow their doubts wherever they may lead.
You are good at demonstrating how to not answer questions. Perhaps you would make a good politician.
The Instructor
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat if every single person, from eldest to youngest, was infected with an incurable highly-contagious and deadly disease: one which, if left unchecked, would essentially eliminate the entire human race?create a scenario in which the best of all possible outcomes is the complete and utter destruction of a group of people large enough to be considered an ethnicity.
After some thought I can conceive of no such scenario. If you have ideas on it, then offer them up, and I'll let you know if I agree or not. I doubt there is such a s ...[text shortened]... uld not translate to the scenarios of God-sanctioned genocide described in your divine accounts.
I think that would qualify as justification.
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloDid I say anything about being right or wrong in my post? No. I merely acknowledge that if an all powerful God exists he can grind you into pulp and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
That's because you hold bizarre, obviously false notions in the vein of "might makes right", as already detailed in past threads on these boards.
As far as my thread about might making right, in human terms victors have a way of rewriting history as those who are conquered are forever vanquished. So you have to admit that there is some truth to this way of thinking.
After all, what is right? Is it not an opinion is or there universal truth? Usually those not of faith object to the notion of universal truth. To them, it is just all subjective.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow is utter destruction through genocide the "best possible" outcome for that scenario you describe?!? I assume that by "best possible" you are referring to logical possibility, which just hinges on whether or not the outcome in question entails a contradiction. Surely there are any number of logically possible outcomes that are better than genocide here. For examples: just because a disease is "contagious" (or even "highly contagious" ), there is no logical contradiction in a state of affairs where that disease doesn't spread for whatever reason; or why not just transport the affected population off somewhere else; or why not just effectively quarantine them; or...I am sure there are any number of objections that can be raised here. You won't be able to fend off these objections unless you just become shamelessly ad hoc in further stipulating. Of course, a great solution to such infection would just be to have the population cured through whatever channel...but you have stipulated that it is "incurable". I wonder why you stipulate this? Diseases are not such that they are in theory "incurable", and if there were some agent with enough power and opportunity, the curing could simply be brought about, or made such that they were never inflicted to begin with.
What if every single person, from eldest to youngest, was infected with an incurable highly-contagious and deadly disease: one which, if left unchecked, would essentially eliminate the entire human race?
I think that would qualify as justification.
At any rate, I think this scenario clearly fails to meet the criteria you laid out.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey
Did I say anything about being right or wrong in my post? No. I merely acknowledge that if an all powerful God exists he can grind you into pulp and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
As far as my thread about might making right, in human terms victors have a way of rewriting history as those who are conquered are forever vanquished. So you ...[text shortened]... those not of faith object to the notion of universal truth. To them, it is just all subjective.
Did I say anything about being right or wrong in my post? No. I merely acknowledge that if an all powerful God exists he can grind you into pulp and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
That God would have the power to do that is already assumed by all parties in this discussion from the get-go, so what actual substance are you adding to the discussion? Perhaps you, like KellyJay, have completely failed to understand what is at issue here.
As far as my thread about might making right, in human terms victors have a way of rewriting history as those who are conquered are forever vanquished. So you have to admit that there is some truth to this way of thinking.
No, you're confused. Even if true, that observation of yours wouldn't show there is any truth to the idea that might makes right. What a sloppy inference on your part....
After all, what is right? Is it not an opinion is or there universal truth? Usually those not of faith object to the notion of universal truth. To them, it is just all subjective.
Boy, you really have both sides of the debate well-characterized, don't you? 🙄🙄
You ought to jettison these retarded caricatures. You know, maybe try actually listening to what persons on both sides say so that you don't make yourself look so foolish with your little synopses of the arguments for and against....
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo tell me, in any kingdom on earth what happens to those that rebelDid I say anything about being right or wrong in my post? No. I merely acknowledge that if an all powerful God exists he can grind you into pulp and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
That God would have the power to do that is already assumed by all parties in this discussion from the get-go, so what actual substance are y ...[text shortened]... n't make yourself look so foolish with your little synopses of the arguments for and against....
against a King?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy do you ask? If you are interested in that question, I suppose you can just look to the historical record for answers. That's irrelevant to this discussion. Again, earth to KellyJay: we are supposed to be hypothetically discussing possible reasons that would serve in some capacity as legitimizers for certain actions of God at issue.
So tell me, in any kingdom on earth what happens to those that rebel
against a King?
Kelly
One point that might be broadly relevant, though, is the observation that there are conceivable conditions under which it would be justified to rebel against a king...since there are conceivable instances of tyranny and abuse of kingly power.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe objections are based upon assumptions, i.e., assuming we can find a cure, assuming they can be transported without any possible contact, assuming a quarantine is logistically possible (and effective), assuming all would submit to said quarantine, etc., etc..
How is utter destruction through genocide the "best possible" outcome for that scenario you describe?!? I assume that by "best possible" you are referring to logical possibility, which just hinges on whether or not the outcome in question entails a contradiction. Surely there are any number of logically possible outcomes that are better than genocide he ...[text shortened]... gin with.
At any rate, I think this scenario clearly fails to meet the criteria you laid out.
There are times when destruction is the only possible path given all other parameters, means and ways.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The objections are based upon assumptions, i.e., assuming we can find a cure, assuming they can be transported without any possible contact, assuming a quarantine is logistically possible (and effective), assuming all would submit to said quarantine, etc., etc..
There are times when destruction is the only possible path given all other parameters, means and ways.
The objections are based upon assumptions, i.e., assuming we can find a cure, assuming they can be transported without any possible contact, assuming a quarantine is logistically possible (and effective), assuming all would submit to said quarantine, etc., etc..
The objections are based on logical possibility, since you asked about the "best possible" outcome. For instance, the transportation objection is based on the fact that transporting the population away somewhere without contact is logically possible (entails no contradiction). So, that's a possible outcome; and I presume it is preferable to utter destruction through genocide. So your scenario fails. The other objections would all function similarly.
Why would you constrain "possibility" here to a "logistical" sort? This thread deals with an agent who is putatively all-powerful. And you yourself have stated in the past the the GAFE, for example, is "true to form" in its definition of God; and, as you surely recall, the GAFE defines God, in part, as omnipotent, where omnipotence there refers to the ability to do whatever is logically possible. So, you should be focusing on possibility construed broadly as logical possibility....
There are times when destruction is the only possible path given all other parameters, means and ways.
Then provide the scenario where that is the case. Again, I see no such scenario.
