12 Mar '15 17:17>
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, since appealing to common sense didn't work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Originally posted by vivify
You said on page 2 of this thread:
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]you cannot call yourself a christian and condone the genocides in the old testament, the rapes, the slavery, the injustice.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJesus said he is "one" with God; the same god that brought all the evils in the OT which Zahlanzi claimed no true Christian would condone.
The difficulty with the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it is contingent on the statement. So a sentence like: "No true Scotsman was born in England, having had no Scottish ancestry, and never having lived there." is perfectly true, since they lack any of the defining features of Scottishness. Here it's less clear. A Christian is a follower of Christ ...[text shortened]... proach taken as throwing accusations of fallacy around tends to drive debates into a cul-de-sac.
Originally posted by vivifyI don't plan on not using the 'free will' argument for anything, and I still do
I made the OP very clear: that Christians need to stop using "free will" as an argument for anything God does or doesn't do (like saying God didn't stop some horrific event because he doesn't mess with free will). Clearly, Good had been shown to frequently mrs with people's free will.
Originally posted by vivifyWas that said by him or of him? In the Gospels he repeatedly refers to himself of the 'son of man'. I think this was a way of mocking the Romans as the Emperor styled himself Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus, the English equivalent would be roughly Tiberius Caesar, Son of the God Augustus, Emperor. It's not clear to me that the style Jesus used was intended to indicate more than contempt for the Roman Principes. I think there is an argument to be made which I'll do in the following post.
Jesus said he is "one" with God; the same god that brought all the evils in the OT which Zahlanzi claimed no true Christian would condone.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJesus’ words in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” The Jews’ reaction to this statement indicate they know he was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).
Was that said by him or of him? In the Gospels he repeatedly refers to himself of the 'son of man'. I think this was a way of mocking the Romans as the Emperor styled himself Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus, the English equivalent would be roughly Tiberius Caesar, Son of the God Augustus, Emperor. It's not clear to me that the styl ...[text shortened]... e Roman Principes. I think there is an argument to be made which I'll do in the following post.
Originally posted by KellyJayNot you specifically, but Christians a large. Many people use arguments like "the reason God doesn't stop war, famine, rape, torture, etc., is because God doesn't like to violate free will". This erroneous line of logic has been used a lot on this forum, and elsewhere.
I don't plan on not using the 'free will' argument for anything, and I still do
not understand why you think that is a statement I need to worry about or
be concern with.
Originally posted by vivifyWell both go on, there comes a time when God does stop it, but as a rule
Not you specifically, but Christians a large. Many people use arguments like "the reason God doesn't stop war, famine, rape, torture, etc., is because God doesn't like to violate free will". This erroneous line of logic has been used a lot on this forum, and elsewhere.
Originally posted by vivifyYeah, but the Gospel of John is non-historical, it's purpose is to define a theology, not accurately portray history. If he said that in one of the other Gospels I'd take it more seriously.
Jesus’ words in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” The Jews’ reaction to this statement indicate they know he was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI acknowledge that God can and does alleviate it, and He allows it go
The complaint is that there is evil in the world which God could alleviate, but does not. A response from Christian apologists is to argue that if God were to intervene it would compromise our free will. However, I think that before taking that route we need to establish that there is a moral case that God should intervene in the world. In other words ...[text shortened]... rstand it, I sent mountain rescue, a helicopter, a lifeboat, you'd have thought it'd be enough!"
Originally posted by KellyJayAs you say,your god does intervene from time to time, isn't that a subtle way of controlling or at least influencing free will?
I acknowledge that God can and does alleviate it, and He allows it go
forward too. We are the ones doing the evil, and to attempt to say it is
God's fault that we are doing evil things is laughable and sad.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI believe there may be good reasons for the genocides in the old testament. 😏
"most"
most what? just as an example, catholicism stance is that evolution is real and that the earth is old.
ask christians from other countries than the US if they think the bible should be taken literally.
it matters quite a lot. you cannot call yourself a christian and condone the genocides in the old testament, the rapes, the slavery, the injustice.
Originally posted by RJHindsR.J., it's a little difficult to know where to start with that statement. If your God is virtuous then the genocides cannot have been sanctioned by him. If the genocides were not sanctioned by him then the histories in the Bible are just that, histories. Further it means that what you are reading as divine judgement is in fact human propaganda. So in that case your understanding of the Bible is flawed. The alternative is worse. If God did order a genocide then by all modern standards your God is evil. Which would mean we are all in trouble. Since the second case is essentially unthinkable, and I realise this is an argument to bad consequences, either God does not exist or the Bible is not solely the word of God. So, I put it to you that your reading of the Bible is flawed.
I believe there may be good reasons for the genocides in the old testament. 😏
Originally posted by OdBodInfluencing free will is no different than showing an ad on TV, come buy my
As you say,your god does intervene from time to time, isn't that a subtle way of controlling or at least influencing free will?