True or False Quiz

Originally posted by RBHILL
7) True.

Bigger is not necessarily better look at David and Goliath.

But, RB, has not the modern church adopted the theology of the black porno star that indeed bigger is better? Is not the evangelist with a satellite saying bigger is better. Is not the church that was at one time a shopping mall saying bigger is better. When we ask the minister how many members does your church have are we not communicating that bigger is better? When a minister brags about how many baptisms he did last year, is he not saying bigger is better?

I'll amend my answer to 1) to "F, except that a situation with more suffering is assumed to be less moral than a situation with less suffering, all else being equal."

Originally posted by nicknomo
Well do you disagree that all religious moral theory is, is essentially following the word of god? It's simply god saying to man "do this because I want you to". That's what it comes down to. Unlike modern philosophical moral theories, there is no other absolute standard for all entities to be judged by. God is making the rules, and he is defining w ...[text shortened]... standard the same standard to god, the Bible would have proven God immoral ~2000 years ago.

You seem to think that all religious moral theories are, at bottom, expressions of the Divine Command theory. This is a mistake on your part. There are Natural Law Theories, intuitionistic theories, etc., in addition to the Divine Command Theory. Regardless of this, however, the argument I've presented in the thread on the problem of evil is consistent with all these theories. It presupposes no particular secular ethical theory, nor the falsity of any theistic ethical theory. The argument does contain the premise that a morally perfect being would prefer that logically unnecessary suffering not occur, but this premise is not a presupposition (because it is a premise, and premises are not presuppositions).

Originally posted by bbarr
You seem to think that all religious moral theories are, at bottom, expressions of the Divine Command theory. This is a mistake on your part. There are Natural Law Theories, intuitionistic theories, etc., in addition to the Divine Command T ...[text shortened]... because it is a premise, and premises are not presuppositions).

There are Natural Law Theories, intuitionistic theories, etc., in addition to the Divine Command Theory

The age old argument that you have presented is not in accordance with the moral theory I have described. That is why it is rejected every time it is presented. It is the question most frequently asked by children to their parents, and doubters to the church. The reply has been the same for the last thousand years. "Why does god allow bad things to happen?". "Why do good people suffer?".

The reply is "That's gods plan. They will be treated properly in the after life. We can't always understand why god does it, but he has his reasons"

You don't have to buy it, or believe it. I don't. However, its a logical out. The definition of morality you tried to hold god up to is not one that is found immoral by christians. They don't believe god is required to live up to any standard, other than the one he sees fit and has defined. They don't believe allowing suffering is such a breach.

Simply put, no Christian holds god up to that moral standard by requiring that he prevents suffering. You assume that he is held up to that moral standard. They are clearly different.

Hence, the definition of morality is required to fit your definition... Which is simply not matched by most Christians.

Furthermore, you can never even know whether the suffering is unneccessary. It could be defined as necessary, if god merely deems it so.

By the way, this question is directly addressed by the book of job. Much of my response can be mirrored by interpretations of that text.