Originally posted by FMFSeems like you missed this the first time: When you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. So who or what is the lawgiver of the supposed moral law you are using?
Eternal torture is a figment of human imagination. Not recognizing it as being the most evil notion ever dreamt up by humans suggests to me that subscribers to it cannot have a credible moral compass. Fortunately, it's not real. So it's all rather-angels-dancing on-the-head of a pin-esque.
Also, what if being in the presence of God brought about pleasure, and being separated from God brought about pain? You can't have the one without the other.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWe talked about this before and I explained my view clearly. Why do you ignore the stances people actually take and then just regurgitate the same questions over and over again?
Seems like you missed this the first time: When you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. So who or what is the lawgiver of the supposed moral law you are using?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you get pleasure from telling yourself that you are "in the presence of God", then good for you.And if you feel you might experience actual pain if you imagined yourself as "being separated from God", then oh what a pity for you.
Also, what if being in the presence of God brought about pleasure, and being separated from God brought about pain? You can't have the one without the other.
Originally posted by FMFI was talking about what happens after death in eternity.
If you get pleasure from telling yourself that you are "in the presence of God", then good for you.And if you feel you might experience actual pain if you imagined yourself as "being separated from God", then oh what a pity for you.
When I trace the usage of the phrase "the will of God" in the New Testament it is used from great and grand matters.
This section of Witness Lee's book The Experience of Life helped me very much concerning understanding my purpose in the will of God. This is just a sample below -
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?cid=22
I. THE SCRIPTURAL BASIS
Ephesians 5:17, “Be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”
Colossians 1:9, “That ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.”
Romans 12:1-2, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
Hebrews 10:5, 7, “When he cometh into the world, he saith…Lo, I am come to do thy will, O God.”
Matthew 6:10, “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.”
Hebrews 13:21, “…to do his will.”
II. THE MEANING OF THE WILL OF GOD
What, actually, is the will of God? Christians often mention the will of God in relation to trivial affairs, such as their occupation and marriage. They use this phrase in a very casual manner, thus belittling and underestimating the will of God. When we carefully study the will of God throughout the New Testament, we discover that it points to matters great and lofty. For example, Ephesians 5:17, to “understand what the will of the Lord is,” seems to be a very common phrase, but the context of the book of Ephesians reveals that this phrase indicates depth. Ephesians is a very special book in the Bible; many of its words and principles speak of God and eternity. Therefore, the will of God mentioned there can never merely refer to common, insignificant matters. Furthermore, Ephesians chapter 5 is based on the preceding chapters. Chapter 1 speaks of the mystery of God’s will (v. 9), and chapter 3 speaks of the will of God purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 11); both refer to extremely great things. Then chapter 5 exhorts us to understand the will of God, which naturally refers to the great matters previously mentioned, not to trivial matters in our life.
And preceding that paragraph was this about the anointing (the moving of the Holy Spirit within the believer)
CHAPTER EIGHT
KNOWING THE WILL OF GOD
We now come to the lesson of knowing the will of God or the leading of the Lord. This lesson is closely related in experience to the teaching of the anointing. The purpose of the anointing is to anoint the substance of God into us that we may reach the goal of the mingling of God with man. Moreover, the teaching of the anointing is given that we may know the leading of the Lord and His mind toward us. The leading and the mind of the Lord is the will of God. Therefore, if we want to know the will of God, we must have the experience of obeying the teaching of the anointing. Only those who experience the anointing are capable of knowing the will of God. For those who do not experience the anointing, it is almost impossible to know the will of God.
However, when we discuss this lesson on knowing the will of God, we cannot begin with the teaching of the anointing, because the anointing emphasizes the moving of the Holy Spirit in us and is not the will of God itself. At the same time, the will of God is too great a matter and can never be discussed merely as a part of the teaching of the anointing. Therefore, we must devote one lesson wholly to discuss it in detail.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have simply attached the word "just" to a hypothetical moral atrocity and called it "just". That's what your "perspective" has made you do. I have asked you repeatedly what moral lessons can imperfect humanity draw from your so-called "perfect justice" to make the application of justice by humanity better and of course you have dodged it every time because what you claim is "justice" has basically nothing to do with justice. There is no lesson to be learned.
Some see it as 'just' others see it as 'ghastly vengeful'. It's all a matter of perspective.
Originally posted by sonshipPeople like you would also deny the Holocaust.
Talking about "arbitrary." You're casting doubt on the historical existence of plenty of other ancient persons for whom we have far less evidence.
You believe that Julius Caesar was a historical figure ?
People like you would also deny the Holocaust.
Don't watch it. Your loss.
[b] Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE[/b]
I take extreme offence at that, we will have no further discussions.
Originally posted by FMFAnd your perspective hasn't made you call it a moral atrocity?
You have simply attached the word "just" to a hypothetical moral atrocity and called it "just". That's what your "perspective" has made you do. I have asked you repeatedly what moral lessons can imperfect humanity draw from your so-called "perfect justice" to make the application of justice by humanity better and of course you have dodged it every time because w ...[text shortened]... u claim is "justice" has basically nothing to do with justice. There is no lesson to be learned.
According to whose moral law would you say it is a moral atrocity? Your own? If you claim that there is no universally correct moral law then your view cannot even be correct to start off with. But once again you fail to see that.