quote:People who've asked, "What could God have 'tweaked' so as not to have a planetful of evil s.o.b.s?": He could have kept alive his personal relationship with them despite Adam and Eve's actions.
What makes you think Adam and Eve had a personal relationship with God that was all that great?
I mean...events would kind of lead us to believe otherwise, wouldn't they?
What kind of relationship with God are you looking for, DB? Face to face weekly chats? Daily phone calls? Whispers during prayer time?
quote: He could have engineered beings that would derive less pleasure from evil.
In my understanding of my own religion, He couldn't. There's no way for us to be both mortal and NOT tempted by evil.
quote:He could have sent a messiah THEN.
What would this have accomplished?
quote:He could inspired men in every community with direction communication rather than just one man.
In my opinion, God did as good as He could with the materials He had on him. Of course, I take it as an a priori condition that God is just, merciful, kind and loving.
quote:If you don't think that people can choose evil so completely that they would reject God to his face, I really think you and I have different perspectives on human capability.
posted
Right, I understand that LDS have defined Godhood in a way that limits his responsibility for some of these things, and that is a step in the right direction... I keep holding out for the day that you'll decide all the cruel actions attributed to God in the Old Testament have been revealed as erroneously reported...
And yes, I am saying that if God exists and he's done the stuff the Old Testament says he'd done and ordered done, then I want nothing to do with him.
Of course, I don't believe in him and doubt seriously that I'll have to face that choice, but I've got my moral code and won't break it for gods of any sort, no matter how they threaten me. Maybe for my kids, if their lives depended on it, I'd bend my ethics. But because a God says to? Pshaw.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, One thing you may not understand is that I (and David, I think) don't automatically accept that your God is good or that he always tells the truth.
If I come face to face with God and he is as many Christians seem to believe, I really hope I'll choose hell over serving him, because that would be, for me, the moral choice.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, One thing you may not understand is that I (and David, I think) don't automatically accept that your God is good or that he always tells the truth.
If I come face to face with God and he is as many Christians seem to believe, I really hope I'll choose hell over serving him, because that would be the moral choice.
Ok wonderful, but when you are arguing that even taking the scriptures description of events that the flood was immoral it matters not that you don't believe in any of it in the first place.
If you accept God but don't believe he, "Always tells the truth." Well then God is not the epitome of virtue, he is simply an empowered entity whose alignment is kinda hard to put a finger on. The only reason I could find to worship such a God is I wouldn't want him to squelch me.
edit: As for choosing hell over an unjust God, its unfortunate that you are both so convinced that there is no way God could adequately explain his methodology, I certainly hope you might stick around to hear God's answers to your questions before you insist he ship you off to hell.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of not bowing before an unjust god, I am not so principled as DB and Squicky: I agree that theirs would be the moral choice, but I would be willing to bend my morality that far. There comes a point when you have to bow to superior force.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok wonderful, but when you are arguing that even taking the scriptures description of events that the flood was immoral it matters not that you don't believe in any of it in the first place.
Except it does, because this is an active mythological structure in this world and a potential configuration for the divine. Myths have some pretty darn huge, generally unacknowledged affects on society. So, it is really important to me.
For that matter, even if I don't believe that many of the Bible stories can't be literally true, that doesn't mean that the entity that propogated them isn't God. God could exist and told those stories for reasons of his own. I'm not sure I won't come face to face with your God after I die. The myths don't have to be literally true to come from the divine.
edit: I have a very complicated conception of mythology. The short version is, the logos or meaning behind the myth is much more important than whether it actually happened. The important part for me in judging the myth, as with any story, even the ones we tell about things that we know happened, is the meaning behind the events.
I'm not actually terribly bothered by most interpretations of the Noah myth, except when it is regarded as literally true.
quote:The only reason I could find to worship such a God is I wouldn't want him to squelch me.
And he gives you things and hurts your enemies. That sums up about 3/4 of Old Testament for me. It is exactly the "Submit to me unquestioning because I have power" aspect that I find so evil.
My response (and the response of many Christians) is that while God doesn't change, our understanding of God changes. I can certainly believe that the writers of those Scriptures believed the mythology, or that they (as would be consistent with contemporary writing) were using metaphor.
If I believed the Noah story (and some others) as literal truth, I would be signing up to join the rebellion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
As I understand it, the devil in Mormon doctrine advocated the elimination of Free Will, which would have made it impossible to do evil. God took the opposite approach, and advocated for the doing of evil as a lesser evil than the prevention of evil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:David: So rather then live with God who you deem too cruel you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
Otherwise, Satan is merely performing God's will. Just another stooge.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, As per our other discussion, one of my earlier heresies was the rejection of the Old Testament as Christian scripture.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the Old Testament. The God that is presented there is majestic and loving and just.
He is not always nice. I don't think any God worth the name can afford to be nice.
For me, the Old Testament is a strong witness of the need for a Redeemer. Moses leading the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, crossing the Red Sea, raising the brass serpent to heal them, Daniel being saved by the angel in the Lion pit, Elijah's struggles with Ahab and Jezebel-- these stories, to me, are precursors, forerunners of the struggles Christ underwent, and the struggles we undergo in letting His salvation take effect in our lives.
Further, we meet actual characters in the Old Testament. People who are flawed, like Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, even Elijah. They're shown at their best and at their very worst.
The stories of the Old Testament that are about sacrifice are the ones most important to me. Consider the sacrifice of Isaac: to me, it shows that God simultaneously requires the most dear, the most extreme, the most beautiful thing in our lives-- and that when we are willing to give it to Him, He will not strip it away from us. It is the precursor to Christ's magnificient, "And whoso shall loose his life, for my sake, shall find it."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm Tom, I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too. You can't have any good if the evil option does not exist. God put folks on earth knowing many would choose evil he can see the future into the eternities. In fact he knew that everyone would commit evil. But he also knew some would notice the ultimate result of wrong doing and right doing and elect the path of righteousness.
----
quote: That sums up about 3/4 of Old Testament for me. It is exactly the "Submit to me unquestioning because I have power" aspect that I find so evil.
Read more Old Testament then. God doesn't NEED our praise but he certainly is not going to allow you to dictate how the universe runs.
If you choose evil then there is a place for those who seek it. If you are not evil, but don't really care to actively seek righteousness, well theres a place for that too. If you earnestly seek the truth and are willing to put God first because he knows what is best for you there is a place for those people too. Theres a place for everyone.
Interesting theory on the mythology by the way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Isaac sacrafice, to me, says "When I tell you to do something, even if it is something really, really bad, the proper response is to do it without any questions." Abraham chose poorly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, What about those people who seek righteousness and truth but are horrified by the character and actions of God as it is described to them? Where's the place for them?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:David: So rather then live with God who you deem too cruel you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
Otherwise, Satan is merely performing God's will. Just another stooge.
You don't go from a mere mortal to instantly becoming a diety. If I lived thousands of years and was very observant I would learn alot about human behavior that I could exploit. Satan has the power of experience and that gives him some advantages.
As for God creating Satan, well yes God created the being who would one day choose to take up that mantle. God certainly did not say, "I know Ill afflict people with Satan!" It was more, "Satan intends to do X, and I need to accomplish Y. X will make Y possible so Ill allow Satan to do as he intends as it will accomplish my ends for mankind. If God knows all it was the best option.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
That doesn't really logically follow, Xavier.
No one ever said God created Satan.
Even if God did create Satan, it doesn't follow that therefore God is responsible for all of Satan's wickedness.
Why should the power to do evil deify Satan? It seems like an illogical assumption.
To answer from a Mormon point of view-- Satan was created by God, just as all spirits were. Like all spirits, he had his agency. As time went on, for some reason Satan craved power. Long story short, that power was denied him, and he rebelled.
I do not believe that Satan is the fount of all evil; of course, I do not believe God is the sole source of order in the universe either.
Satan's fairly restricted in terms of power, in Mormon theology. Anyone with a body can best him. He is mostly limited to tempting and psychological warfare.
Satan as a stooge... well, CS Lewis called him a tool. He called Judas a tool, too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, What about those people who seek righteousness and truth but are horrified by the character and actions of God as it is described to them? Where's the place for them?
Well thats just plain impossible Mr S. Thats like asking for a place for people who are thirsty but don't want to fluids to enter their body.
If you are indeed seeking for truth and righteousness and God is infact the embodiment of these things, I think you will find him to be the best company you could ask for.
But like I said before, if God is not virtuous then he is an empowered being with a questionable alignment. If there is somebody with more power Ill throw in my lot with them. But if God is dishonest then he has fooled me as I have felt only His love in my life.
Why would I seriously suggest that if God is not really good that you are morally obligated to follow him?
I think it's more likely that God will VERY adequately explain all his actions of the Old Testament, New Testament, etc, and if you are not satisfied it is because you were not really seeking to be satisfied. Satan does not accept God's reasoning for not taking his plan and has convinced himself that God is contemptible.
The best literary Satanic character I've encountered is Calvin from the Alvin Maker series. But he is seemingly growing out of that role. But Taleswapper does a very good job of outlining the psychology of an evil person who has lied himself into that state.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the OT is important to understanding the human condition. It give the "history" of the culture from which Jesus came, which I believe is important. The stories do illuminate a people's relationship with God. I think it is a valuable record of a culture's move to monotheism and to a faith that was more than an attempt to influence the natural world.
Scott, Just? Certainly not to everyone. I don't think that God only cared for the Jews, yet the stories certainly read that way. And a lot of children get slaughtered - mauled by bears, for example - which can't really be called either just of merciful. A lot of baby Egyptians got killed just for being born Egyptian. The God portrayed in the OT shows a heck of a lot of favoritism. Which makes sense if you read the OT as the witness of one people and their relationship with God. It doesn't make so much sense if we take it as literal truth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too.
Well, that's fine. But that means that Satan is not responsible for all evil; it means that God is responsible for all evil, on behalf of a greater good.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too.
Well, that's fine. But that means that Satan is not responsible for all evil; it means that God is responsible for all evil, on behalf of a greater good.
If by responsible you mean responsible for helping manages us in our ultimate decision between the two then yes. If you mean God created all evil then no, Mormons believe God has a father who has a father who has a father, and that Satan is a role that not just Lucifer has taken up, and that it also goes back ad infinitum. There really is not much discussion on the nature of Satan's role as it does nothing to help us achieve salvation, so I expect to get more information on the matter when I'm dead.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are indeed seeking for truth and righteousness and God is infact the embodiment of these things, I think you will find him to be the best company you could ask for.
No! Wrong! Your god kills children and brags about it! An 'explanation' along the lines of 'You will understand when you are dead' is not good enough. It assumes that which is to be proved, namely that the god in question is good. You are saying that any action god takes is good, because it is god doing it; and you know that the god is good because... it tells you it is good. You can't do that! You have to look at the actions and not the words; and the actions are evil! The only way to get good out of genocide is to assume that it prevents something even worse; but to do that, you have to know already that the intention is good, and that is precisely the point in dispute. Why is this so hard to understand? You do not know that your god is good; you only know what it tells you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, Just? Certainly not to everyone. I don't think that God only cared for the Jews, yet the stories certainly read that way. And a lot of children get slaughtered - mauled by bears, for example - which can't really be called either just of merciful. A lot of baby Egyptians got killed just for being born Egyptian. The God portrayed in the OT shows a heck of a lot of favoritism. Which makes sense if you read the OT as the witness of one people and their relationship with God. It doesn't make so much sense if we take it as literal truth.
Kmboots--
Precisely where do you stop, when you begin to make justifications for saying, 'This portion of scripture is false because it doesn't live up to my standards and philosophies?'
It seems to me that this way of approaching theology is flawed-- it puts one's own attitudes above the attitudes of God. (Assuming one accepts the given scriptures as inspired to some degree by the divine)
How does one decide what is holy, and what is one culture's take on unexplainably lucky events that occurred to them?
And for the record-- God screwed everyone in the Old Testament pretty equally. Israelites, too. The book of Judges has lots of stories about this aspect of being a chosen people...
(Okay, what's REALLY interesting to me is that the two Big Slaughters-by-the-Hand-of-God-Himself stories-- the Flood, and the Plague of the Firstborn-- both figure prominently in books I'm writing. And here we are discussing them.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: You know can you stop being disingenuous about my God's actions. Bragging? You've got to be kidding me.
God has explained the situation that I think he was justified in his action. I have never once said, "An action is good because God did it." This entire TIME I've done nothing but rationally explain reasoning for God's actions. You may not agree with my conclusions but don't pretend that I have simply accepted God's actions as good because he told me so.
I do not KNOW my God is good? Um excuse me until God does something that cannot be demonstratively right thats when I will say he isn't good. Just because you fail to come up with such a scenario does not mean its mine or God's fault. YOU do not know God is good, I on the other hand have ample evidence that he is good. If God explained EVERY single reason for flooding all of humanity it would take a book so long nobody could finish it in their life time as he would have to explain every single effect throughout all of history and how it relates to every single human being that has ever lived.
You are right I can only have two things that I base my assertion that God is good.
A: Acts God claims to have commited. Assuming He actually did it, then the rightness of it can be analyzed.
B: His word.
Well you are right, I could be deceived by my God, but I could also be dealing with an honest God. Since I have to choose one and both are equally likely, Ill choose the one that gives me a happy outlook on life, rather then the one that makes me live each day in fear.
We shall see who was right. Up until now, believing and following God has led me to circumstances that I think are wonderful.
posted
Scott, hermeneutics, mostly. It is possible to study and learn about the context of the texts - who they were written for and by, what were the literary conventions when they were written, what anthropologically and archeaological do we know about who wrote them, when and why, etc.
We do this for all sorts of ancient texts in order to interpret them. It makes sense to me to apply those methods to biblical texts as well. There is a ton of meaning that we miss if we don't apply that kind of understanding. We could read, "Jesus sat" and skip right over it without realizing that, in the literary convention of the time, body posture signified something in particular. Or read, "on the first day of the week" and not think anything beyond "Sunday" instead of realizing that the author included that as an allusion to the first day of Creation.
I do think the Scriptures are inspired - but that is different from "dictated in a way to be understood without context".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Given these statements: A) God is omnipotent. B) Satan is not omnipotent. C) Satan is responsible for all Evil. D) God created Satan.
It is my contention that: "if A & B, then P". P) God can eliminate Satan at any time he chooses.
Further, I think this follows: "if P, then Q" Q) God can eliminate evil at any time he chooses.
It is my stance, that: "if Q and D and !Q then X" X) God is responsible for all evil.
In english: "If God created Satan, and Satan is responsible for all evil, and God can eliminate Satan at any time, but does not do so, then God is himself responsible for all evil."
You may not agree with this logic, and there are a number of leaps. I'd imagine most of those who would disagree would disagree with the last step in the chain.
However, I'd assume that this is largely meaningless to you, since the Mormon religion does not believe in A or C. My post was addressing someone whom, as far as I know, believes A-D
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how you use hermenuetics-- a branch of literary scholarship-- to determine the divinity of a work.
How do you say that the Flood story is NOT divine, and is the product of propaganda of the age, and that the Christ story IS divine and from God?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
That doesn't really logically follow, Xavier.
No one ever said God created Satan.
Even if God did create Satan, it doesn't follow that therefore God is responsible for all of Satan's wickedness.
Why should the power to do evil deify Satan? It seems like an illogical assumption.
To answer from a Mormon point of view-- Satan was created by God, just as all spirits were. Like all spirits, he had his agency. As time went on, for some reason Satan craved power. Long story short, that power was denied him, and he rebelled.
I do not believe that Satan is the fount of all evil; of course, I do not believe God is the sole source of order in the universe either.
Satan's fairly restricted in terms of power, in Mormon theology. Anyone with a body can best him. He is mostly limited to tempting and psychological warfare.
Satan as a stooge... well, CS Lewis called him a tool. He called Judas a tool, too.
Scott, I hate to say it, but this is some of the stuff which makes some Christians uncomfortable with calling LDS a Christian religion.
I agree that Xavier's statement isn't necessarily a given (though it could result in that conclusion), but as to some of the rest:
I think everyone (at least everyone who believes that Satan exists) believes that God created him. Though I guess this goes along with your statement about God not being the source of all Order...
If it did not come from God, then where did it come from? (otherwise we seem to have very different definitions of God)
KoM, I agree that you can't use the Noah story as an example of why to believe that God is good (and potentially much of the old testament) but as a Christian it's at least somewhat reasonable to accept the new testament as the "evidence" that God is good and in fact is capable of providing suitable explanations for previous actions (the ones which don't turn out to be pure myth)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grimace: Well you are uncomfortable with labeling Mormons as Christians, perhaps rightly so.
But as far as mankind is concerned, we believe the only way to receive salvation from our sins is through the savior Jesus Christ sent by God the Father, and his atonement. Does being a Christians mean we have to agree on the origins of God and Satan?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you are asking. "Inspired" doesn't mean, for me, "word for word as God dictated it".
I treat the New Testament the same way. Paul's letters - written by Paul - or someone on his behalf as he was inspired to write them. Not written by God and transcribed by Paul.
edit to add: Not that I do this myself - I mostly rely on those who know what they are talking about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott and BB, Thanks for not reading deeper into my statement than I indended it to go (as merely a statement of why some are leery of accepting a certain categorization).
BB, it all depends on what the term "Christians" means to any given person (obviously quite variable). I'm not saying that this is even remotely equivalent to our differences but as an extreme comparison: Consider a guy who believes that Jesus is in fact the son of God (but God is actually just the name of some random Martian) and following his teachings will lead him to heaven (but Heaven is another name for Atlantis). I would not be comfortable with a close comparison of his theology to mine because I think they would vary quite a bit.
Personally I'm fine accepting a certain band of thoughts on the nature and power of Satan, and a much narrower band on the nature of God, but there are certain things that are requisites (i.e. omnipotence and omniscience) but anyway, that's not really important to this discussion.
Xavier, your more recent logical proof to say that God is the source of all evil I can accept more than the previous one, but do realize that there have been at least hundreds of years of philosophical debate on the nature of that issue. The topic was one of the primary debates of the Middle Ages (at least). And there's ways to explain that even given your logic that it's an acceptable conclusion that doesn't necessarily conflict with a belief in a god that is "All Good"
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not KNOW my God is good? Um excuse me until God does something that cannot be demonstratively right thats when I will say he isn't good.
Such as, for example, genocide? You would not accept the excuse of 'they deserved it' from anyone else; the only reason you accept it from your god is that you have already decided on the goodness of its actions.
quote:Since I have to choose one and both are equally likely,
They are not equally likely! Suppose you came at the thing fresh, with no idea of what justifications there might be for the genocide. You would condemn it, yes? Then, if you later heard the excuse of "it was necessary", would you not take that for a lie? You only say "They are equally likely" because you have already decided which is true, and need an excuse. Actions have primacy over words; you need to look at the actoins first, and only then decide whether the offered reasons are valid. Bearing in mind, of course, that you have only words to show omniscience and benevolence.
quote:We shall see who was right. Up until now, believing and following God has led me to circumstances that I think are wonderful.
Bully for you. I'm sure a lot of Germans enjoyed being top dog, too.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you mean by 'Evil,' Xavier? The definition of that word seems very important to this discussion.
Also, where does man's agency enter into your logic?
Is Satan, in your logic, responsible for the evil actions of men?
The definition or nature of "Evil" is meaningless in my logic. Replace "Evil" with "cupcakes" and my beliefs on the subject still hold. (You may remember, I actually don't even believe in "evil", as most people would define it.)
The point of my post was to demonstrate that saying that Satan was responsible for X was meaningless, because if you believe that God created Satan, and could trivially remove Satan, that the responsibilty rests on God's shoulders as well.
Edit: Say I create a machine, and carry an "off" switch for that machine with me at all times, and then that machine starts killing people (even if that wasn't my original intent in creating the machine). If I don't turn it off, I'm ultimately responsible.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, by the way, "I have to choose one" is a false dichotomy anyway. You could also withhold judgement while awaiting more evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such as, for example, genocide? You would not accept the excuse of 'they deserved it' from anyone else; the only reason you accept it from your god is that you have already decided on the goodness of its actions.
Don't tell me how I think, its stupidly presumptuous.
Just because we have no other instance of a justified genocide does not mean a justifiable genocide is impossible. We only have one unrepeatable experiment accomplishing cold fusion, does that mean we assume its impossible? If you are seriously suggesting that it is IMPOSSIBLE that genocide could be necessary, well Ill have to disagree with you. Quit pretending that means that I could easily be swayed into jumping on the genocide band wagon, nothing could be further from the truth.
quote: They are not equally likely! Suppose you came at the thing fresh, with no idea of what justifications there might be for the genocide. You would condemn it, yes? Then, if you later heard the excuse of "it was necessary", would you not take that for a lie? You only say "They are equally likely" because you have already decided which is true, and need an excuse. Actions have primacy over words; you need to look at the actoins first, and only then decide whether the offered reasons are valid. Bearing in mind, of course, that you have only words to show omniscience and benevolence.
If I came at the thing truly fresh I would not have the assumption that genocide is empirically wrong. But I do approach genocide in that it is always wrong if a human commits it of his own reasoning. Humans cannot possibly comprehend all the factors that must be understood before undertaking such an awesome (awesome as in epic not TOTALLY AWESOME awesome).
In this instance of justified genocide, you are dealing with God who not only created mankind he is their creator and master He does with us as He wills and we cannot stop him, fortunately for us he is accomplishing the greatest good so we can sleep easy. Did he imbue Noah with power to wipe out anybody he came across? No he had Noah build an ark and God did the deed himself. And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
But go ahead KOM use your limited powers of understanding to judge all of God's actions. You've decided to start arguing with me that I don't KNOW what I think I know instead of arguing with the rationale I've presented.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, by the way, "I have to choose one" is a false dichotomy anyway. You could also withhold judgement while awaiting more evidence.
Or I could say thus far I am convinced, if something turns out to show me otherwise Ill take it into due consideration.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I'd debate with you but I think we agree on most things =p (or at least have already covered one main point of disagreement a while back)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We only have one unrepeatable experiment accomplishing cold fusion, does that mean we assume its impossible?
quote:This is a REALLY bad example -- for scientific reasons more than theological ones.
Care to elucidate? Honestly I am curious, I was under the impression that some scientists in Utah claimed to have worked out cold fusion but they and all others who duplicate their work cannot replicate the results.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
*dryly* Because BB yells back, and you're all calm and rational and stuff.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Because he claims to have been convinced by evidence; that makes him a rational person, capable of having his mind changed by being shown better evidence. You, however, "choose to believe". This is an irrational act changeable only by superior force. Since I cannot apply superior force through the Internet (nor in person, US law being unfortunately irrational on the subject of what is justifiable grounds for violence), there is no use in debating with you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this instance of justified genocide, you are dealing with God who not only created mankind he is their creator and master He does with us as He wills and we cannot stop him, fortunately for us he is accomplishing the greatest good so we can sleep easy.
Sigh... there you go again, assuming what you set out to prove. Until you stop using your position as a premise to prove yourself correct, there is not much point to the discussion. How about replying in the Al-Qaida thread, instead?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because we have no other instance of a justified genocide does not mean a justifiable genocide is impossible.
Why do you assume that God's genocides are justifiable? You start from the presumption that they must be; why?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And here we are discussing them.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
