4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not convinced that the two of you share an understanding of its usage. It was quite clear from some of his posts that he believes rights must be enforceable for them to have meaning suggesting that he is thinking along the lines of legal rights.
Thanks for the long reply. I wont respond to all of it, but I did read it all and try to understand it, though I am still a bit shaky on some points.
KellyJay brought the term into this discussion, and I am mirroring his usage. It is frankly less than clear how, precisely, KellyJay intends the term (and it is hopeless to ask him for precise clarific ny claims regarding Gods 'goodness' or 'justness' and thus renders that bizzaro speech.
If KJ's view is one of legal rights, then his view is even more incoherent than I thought. In KellyJay's view, God is the law-giver and we are under God's law. Also, under his view, God has rights and we don't. There's no way he can seriously be talking about legal rights here because the whole point of legal rights is that they exist for those under the law. So that's utterly and completely backwards.
I don't think he means legal rights, but I do agree that he and I are probably on somewhat of a different understanding. I think his view is maybe some mongrel of what vistesd described as "sovereign rights" and what we could call moral rights.
I also agree that you are right that KJ thinks that one's having the power to successfully enforce rights is requisite to his actually holding such rights. That's a huge error in my opinion. I have been trying to argue against that with him for a long time, and I think I have made no headway.
Maybe, rather than concluding that we have no rights, you can conclude that God is not a 'moral agent' but more akin to a natural phenomena?
Yes, but of course that would entail very substantial revision of KJ's view. Basically, the only reason I brought up the argument that his view entails we have no rights was to try to show him that his view has absurd entailments. The intention there is to try to get him to revise his view in some fashion. Alas, he doesn't think it is absurd: he seems just fine, as far as I can tell, with the entailment that he has no rights. So he sees no need to revise. So, my plan failed.
By the way, thanks for the very good questions and comments of clarification.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
[b]You are glossing over the fact that God sets the time table for all death, so He can
again pick any time method He desires it is with Him that power and/or authority
resides.
I guess I didn't realize that is to be taken explicitly as a fact under your view. God sets the time table for all death? I thought you were committed to some deaths be ...[text shortened]... reasons of the one who supposedly embodies all virtues and wisdom! In a word: bizarro.[/b]
God really wanted us too? I imagine yes, since murder is something that should not
happen and God has allowed us to do things He does not want done. One thing
is sure none of us in this life that is will live forever. So from this I say that you
cannot charge God with murder or anything else since He is the One that set the
rule down in the first place on life and death, it is His to do with as He wills not us.
You still are looking for justification from God who owes you none on life and death.
You actually do not even have a clue as to what God holds as important in this life
either, yet you want to call God's actions bizarre as if you have some scale of
right and wrong that shows God to be lacking. I'd put it to you that you’re the one
lacking since your views of this life are quite closed-small-limited compared to God's
views about what is and is not important in this life. What if God is producing some
thing in us with what He is doing that does not register with your way of thinking?
We do know that God does not care about human wealth and power, and that He
looks on our hearts, He does not look at us as we see ourselves.
I submit that if there are bizarro views or behavior they would reside with man
more than God.
Kelly
NASB
Genesis 6: 6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellothese assertions are so biased its hard to know where to start.
Theistic systems can seem to pervert very basic terms. (Note I'm not claiming here that this is true of all theistic systems.) Here are some examples, in reference to some mainstream Christian beliefs.
[b]'Love'.
It's hard to understand what many theists mean by 'love', given that their belief that God is loving must be read as consistent with ould like some clarification from interested theists on this, please.[/b]
Let it be stated that mankind sought independence from God and brought the
horrendous effects of this moral independence upon themselves, that God provided
a provision , in the form of Christ to propitiate for that error is a kindness, if you
reject the provision then once again, it is not because God has subjected the
creation to futility, but that it was brought about not by Gods will, but by mans. You
are free to avail yourself of the provision or not, again, as a free moral agent you
are responsible for your actions, not God.
As for the perversion of terms, lets take, just by way of example, your first one,
love. What type of love are you talking about, you have not said. The Bible
mentions three, although the ancients had four terms, the last eros, not being
mentioned in scripture. What is more, the term itself is well defined in scripture,
despite your assertions to the contrary and anyone can pick up a Bible and read it
for themselves at 1 Corinthians chapter 13. It is quite extensive and in contrast to
almost every secular definition that I have ever read, it provides examples and
details. Further to that, there are countless examples of love given throughout
passages, through human interaction, the most noteworthy of those being with
respect to the Christ.
There is as far as I am aware, no doctrine of eternal punishment in the Bible, in that
God tortures conscious persons for an eternity in some Hell like environment. This
is not a perversion of the term love, its an extra Biblical doctrine once again
borrowed from the Greeks, whose worst offenders were destined to suffer
punishments. The concept is entirely incongruous with the concept of a loving God.
That Gods love should also be tempered with justice is also not a perversion of the
term, for as far as i can discern, God has not arbitrarily executed judgement on any
one, only in cases where it was deemed that the persons were morally corrupt,
violently disposed and irredeemable. That you present a totally biased point of view
is also noteworthy, for clearly the Bible contains many passages of Gods
benevolence when persons were repentant and truly sorry for their actions.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
It is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
God really wanted us too? I imagine yes, since murder is something that should not
happen and God has allowed us to do things He does not want done. One thing
is sure none of us in this life that is will live forever. So from this I say that you
cannot charge God with mu ...[text shortened]... appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
God really wanted us too?
Why does God really want persons to die? This God of yours is obsessed with death and blood and punishment and whatnot. He should probably just take a deep breath and try to think happy thoughts.
I imagine yes, since murder is something that should not
happen and God has allowed us to do things He does not want done.
As far as I can tell, you are just contradicting yourself here. You say on one hand that God sets the time for all deaths. You say on the other hand that persons other than God set the time for some deaths to something other than what God wants by carrying out acts of free will that contravene God's will. This was the contradiction that I already alluded to when I asked my question regarding human free will (twhitehead brought up the same question too). If there's a contradiction, then something needs to give. You need to either deny that God sets the time for all deaths to what He wants; or else deny that others set the time for some deaths outside of what God wants. You cannot stick to both.
You actually do not even have a clue as to what God holds as important in this life
either, yet you want to call God's actions bizarre as if you have some scale of
right and wrong that shows God to be lacking.
God's actions under discussion here (those of sanctioning genocide, infanticide, and the like) are not actions that we do not understand at all or do not have a clue about. On the contrary, they are actions that we all know to be clearly morally wrong!!! That you keep on just ignoring this huge elephant in the room is what makes this all so bizarre.
I'd put it to you that you’re the one
lacking since your views of this life are quite closed-small-limited compared to God's
views about what is and is not important in this life.
If God values genocide and infanticide and thinks it is important to sanction such things, then He is simply morally impaired. In that case, what He happens to think is important in this life is of no relevance to me. It would just be incredibly unfortunate and tragic in that case that someone so impaired and lacking in wisdom has so much power to impose his will. Tyranny is unfortunate and tragic for the same reason.
I submit that if there are bizarro views or behavior they would reside with man
more than God.
That is consistent with what I have been saying all along: some men, particularly some theists, hold bizarro views. I think yours is a good example.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello"does God really want persons to die? This God of yours is obsessed with death and blood and punishment and whatnot. He should probably just take a deep breath and try to think happy thoughts."
[b]It is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
God really wanted us too?
Why does God really want persons to die? This God of yours is obsessed with death and blood and punishment and whatnot. He should probably just take a deep breath and try to think happy thoughts.
I imagine yes, since murder is s some men, particularly some theists, hold bizarro views. I think yours is a good example.
[/b]It didn't start out that anyone of us would die, that came as part of the curse.
Death for us in my opinion made a place to save us from the fate that Satan and
his angels are going to get, Hell without any chance of redemption.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's late my time, I'm tired, and I don't have time to respond to this right now. I'll respond tomorrow probably.
these assertions are so biased its hard to know where to start.
Let it be stated that mankind sought independence from God and brought the
horrendous effects of this moral independence upon themselves, that God provided
a provision , in the form of Christ to propitiate for that error is a kindness, if you
reject the provision then once aga ...[text shortened]... ny passages of Gods
benevolence when persons were repentant and truly sorry for their actions.
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidYou may logically argue "Yes it is an example of arbitrary injustice but all ends well." You may not logically argue "It is not injustice because it all ends well."
No, it's not an example of "arbitrary injustice," except--and wrongfully--in the minds of those who don't get it. And by "it" I mean the bigger picture.
Job is better off because of what happened. We are better off because of what happened. The lesson was taught at Satan's expense.
God took Satan's challenge (not "bet" as you conveniently describe i , short-sided view that could come away from this story thinking it was an injustice.
Job did not deserve the harms that befell him and they arose at the decision of God and so it is absolutely an example of injustice inflicted by God. If anything, Job meditates on the possible interpretation of undeserved suffering.
By all means you may derive a comforting message from this story. That is its intention after all. It sets out to discuss in a mature way the evidence that many people suffer who do not merit that by any failing on their part and indeed, that faith is not a protection against suffering.
More generally, you may continue to argue that faith provides comfort and the resources to deal with unavoidable suffering. Indeed, for most people that is its primary benefit. What you may not do is dispute that the Bible does indeed examine undeserved suffering in the context of a belief that everything is part of God's plan.
It is your argument that is trivial and not mine. This Sunday School level theology - everything is fine, only bad people will suffer, good people will be rewarded - is just too insipid to carry the weight of human experience.
By analogy, modern day positive thinking pseudo therapy talk insisting that we can take control of our lives, that everything is in our grasp, that we are the captains of our ship, that life is wonderful and all of our failings are our own fault and can be overcome, is trivial and harmful. We are told often, and you probably believe, that the alternative is despair. I disagree. The alternative is we deal with reality and do not rely on magical thinking. But that is another part of the story.
The fact is that the Bible does not insist that God is always predictably good and just, that the faithful have a good time of it and that bad only befalls the guilty. You cannot deal satisfactorily with its difficulties by denying them.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello"As far as I can tell, you are just contradicting yourself here. You say on one hand that God sets the time for all deaths. You say on the other hand that persons other than God set the time for some deaths to something other than what God wants by carrying out acts of free will that contravene God's will. This was the contradiction that I already alluded to when I asked my question regarding human free will (twhitehead brought up the same question too). If there's a contradiction, then something needs to give. You need to either deny that God sets the time for all deaths to what He wants; or else deny that others set the time for some deaths outside of what God wants. You cannot stick to both. "
[b]It is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
God really wanted us too?
Why does God really want persons to die? This God of yours is obsessed with death and blood and punishment and whatnot. He should probably just take a deep breath and try to think happy thoughts.
I imagine yes, since murder is s some men, particularly some theists, hold bizarro views. I think yours is a good example.
[/b]There isn't a contradiction here with God setting a time for each of us to die and
us having the ability (not right to) change that out come by murder. You may as
well say it is a contradiction to set traffic laws for speed since people can disobey
the laws and drive faster or slower. What I think you are calling a contradiction is
God allowing us within some boundries to do as we will even if it goes against what
God wants for us. With this ability to choose being in place is very messy indeed,
but the mess is getting cleaned up.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello"God's actions under discussion here (those of sanctioning genocide, infanticide, and the like) are not actions that we do not understand at all or do not have a clue about. On the contrary, they are actions that we all know to be clearly morally wrong!!! That you keep on just ignoring this huge elephant in the room is what makes this all so bizarre. "
[b]It is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
God really wanted us too?
Why does God really want persons to die? This God of yours is obsessed with death and blood and punishment and whatnot. He should probably just take a deep breath and try to think happy thoughts.
I imagine yes, since murder is s some men, particularly some theists, hold bizarro views. I think yours is a good example.
[/b]Says you! God's judgments are just that, again you are going on about death as
if you have some knowledge of how we all should die, it isn't up to you! I am looking
right at the elephant and telling you only God has the right to take any life He
wants to as He wants to. If anyone else for thier reasons or logic does it, then I
refer you back to the statement about murder were we should have not died it is
wrong all over the place. Something happen like that and God was not really the
one saying it, well than as you point out it is evil to the core.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]As far the rest of your post, you are more than welcome to believe what you will
[b]It is God who sets the time for us to die, now can we die outside of the times that
God really wanted us too?
Why does God really want persons to die? This God of yours is obsessed with death and blood and punishment and whatnot. He should probably just take a deep breath and try to think happy thoughts.
I imagine yes, since murder is s some men, particularly some theists, hold bizarro views. I think yours is a good example.
about me, my views, and God.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidWere Job's sons and servants better off because of what happened? Or do we get to leave them out of the discussion by invoking the 'big picture'?
No, it's not an example of "arbitrary injustice," except--and wrongfully--in the minds of those who don't get it. And by "it" I mean the bigger picture.
Job is better off because of what happened. We are better off because of what happened. The lesson was taught at Satan's expense.
God took Satan's challenge (not "bet" as you conveniently describe i , short-sided view that could come away from this story thinking it was an injustice.
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitAs I said earlier, these people are considered as Job's property and can be destroyed and replaced with a calm conscience - the thought does not even arise to the author of Job - it is not something he anticipates having to explain. Interesting that the Alexandrians under the Ptolemies had all the technology required for an industrial revolution but only used it for silly devices like a coin operated oracle (believe it or not) and amazing stage props. The explanation given by historians I have read (more than one) is that slave labour was so cheap and plentiful that the notion of replacing it with machines was considered ludicrous. In the classical world, human beings were eminently disposable. This is historically interesting and worth knowing but it is not a useful basis for making ethical decisions today. It would be anachronistic to judge classical times by modern standards, so we can read the Bible with great interest, but it is no less absurd to use classical sources as a definitive guide to modern ethics.
Were Job's sons and servants better off because of what happened? Or do we get to leave them out of the discussion by invoking the 'big picture'?
Reading a biography of Alexander the Great last week, it suddenly struck me that his pagan gods and his reliance on Homer as a guide made terrific sense and worked far better than an insipid, sunday school account of watered down Christianity. I also linked that to what I have read of Mohammed and his utterly earthy behavour and again it struck me that Christians ought to wash their hands less often and get serious about the really solid, material, tough ehtical decisions we really confront.
Originally posted by finneganApparently, the theists of today don't anticipate having to explain it either. When you live in bizarro-world, such thoughts don't trouble you, I guess.
As I said earlier, these people are considered as Job's property and can be destroyed and replaced with a calm conscience - the thought does not even arise to the author of Job - it is not something he anticipates having to explain.
Originally posted by finneganPeople go through hardships all the time, you think all of those are worthless
You askedShow some arbitrary and/or senseless act in scripture please! The times I'm aware of that nasty things were going on was when people were sinning and God put an end to them.
The story of Job is entirely about arbitrary and undeserved hardship. As set out, it implies that God accepted a challenge from Satan to test Job's faith ...[text shortened]... ty serious explanation beyond the trivial claim that all suffering is caused by our own sins.
and senseless? What are the important things in this life, keep in mind at this
time everyone (people) in Job story are now death including Job. So when
looking at everyone's life on the whole does that make everyone who died
not so important, all the things they went through, they people they were
before they died worthless too? What is the measure of what is important in
our lives and where did you go to get your views about this?
Kelly