Hypothetical Christian World

[FrenchyBearpaw]

They should not be ground shaking. I do not think they are ground shaking at all.

They are the common duties of man. It is what men and women are supposed to do. Nothing extraordinary in this hypothetical world of brightlights' which is in question.

Your statements are indirect evidence of your belief in humanism.

Humanist Manifesto I

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your complaints are indirect evidence of your belief in God.

Since I don't, in fact, believe in God, your conclusion is somewhat amiss.

And I can't help but notice you don't have a response to the problem of suffering - you believe in an all-powerful being that does nothing while children are raped, yet insist with a straight face that this being is loving, merciful, caring, etc.

This is why I believe that, if God did exist, the world would be a better place: such a being wouldn't sit back and do nothing.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your statements are evidence of your belief in humanism.

Humanist Manifesto I

If by humanism, you mean belief that humans are of infinite worth, dignity, honor, and value, and that human life should be treated with the utmost respect and care and love regardless of one's race, creed, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and whatever else, then yes, I am a humanist. In this sense, Christ was the greatest humanist of all. I am a follower of His, therefore, it would not be incorrect to label me a humanist if by humanist you mean in the sense above.

If you mean humanism in some secular sense such as secular humanism, then clearly I am not an adherent of such doctrine.

My view of humanity is that our ultimate worth, value, and dignity lie in the fact that we were created in the very image of God and that means that each and every person on the face of this earth is created equal, with rights to respect, honor, and love.

 

[Elioenai26]

Since I don't, in fact, believe in God, your conclusion is somewhat amiss.

And I can't help but notice you don't have a response to the problem of suffering - you believe in an all-powerful being that does nothing while children are raped, yet insist with a straight face that this being is loving, merciful, caring, etc.

This is why I believe that, if God did exist, the world would be a better place: such a being wouldn't sit back and do nothing.

You are a physicist right?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If by humanism, you mean belief that humans are of infinite worth, dignity, honor, and value, and that human life should be treated with the utmost respect and care and love regardless of one's race, creed, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and whatever else, then yes, I am a humanist. In this sense, Christ was the greatest humanist of all. I am a follower of His, therefore, it would not be incorrect to label me a humanist if by humanist you mean in the sense above.

If you mean humanism in some secular sense such as secular humanism, then clearly I am not an adherent of such doctrine.

My view of humanity is that our ultimate worth, value, and dignity lie in the fact that we were created in the very image of God and that means that each and every person on the face of this earth is created equal, with rights to respect, honor, and love.

So you're a humanist insofar as your god tells you to be. So if he told to tomorrow to not value life, you'd have to follow his orders.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

And I can't help but notice you don't have a response to the problem of suffering - you believe in an all-powerful being that does nothing while children are raped, yet insist with a straight face that this being is loving, merciful, caring, etc.

This is why I believe that, if God did exist, the world would be a better place: such a being wouldn't sit back and do nothing.

Theodicy has you stumped? It's really not that hard a puzzle to figure out. The first step to grasping it is the recognition that death is not to be feared but is in fact the best possible option in many cases. After that the whole concept of time. This is all confusing because we only see up to now. From God's vantage point, He not only sees the ending but is there already so our present distress is not so pressing. And yet He actually feels our every sorrow and is moved with compassion ...

you have not figured out how to move His hand, and that might be your biggest problem with this.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Theodicy has you stumped? It's really not that hard a puzzle to figure out. The first step to grasping it is the recognition that death is not to be feared but is in fact the best possible option in many cases. After that the whole concept of time. This is all confusing because we only see up to now. From God's vantage point, He not only sees the ending but is there already so our present distress is not so pressing. And yet He actually feels our every sorrow and is moved with compassion ...

you have not figured out how to move His hand, and that might be your biggest problem with this.

Well, isn't that nice.

 

[Elioenai26]

Since I don't, in fact, believe in God..

I can't tell.

Everything you have been saying about human suffering suggests to me that you think that Christians are wrong for believing in a God who does not eradicate suffering from the world. But if you think Christians are wrong, then you must have a concept of what is "right". But if you have a concept of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, then you must believe in the existence of a moral law or standard which is the basis for how you determine what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. But if you believe in the existence of a moral law or standard and this law or standard is appealed to to condemn the actions of a person, even though that person is of the opinion that they are right, then you believe in a law or standard that is true for every person, regardless of their opinions, beliefs, or cultural practices. But if you believe in a law or standard that is true for every person regardless of their subjective opinion, then you believe in an objective moral law or standard. If you believe in an objective moral law or standard, then you believe in a moral law Giver who exists over and above those which are under said law. This law Giver is God, whom you deny in principle, but in reality, you live as if He exists.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I can't tell.

Everything you have been saying about human suffering suggests to me that you think that Christians are wrong for believing in a God who does not eradicate suffering from the world. But if you think Christians are wrong, then you must have a concept of what is "right". But if you have a concept of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, then you must believe in the existence of a moral law or standard which is the basis for how you determine what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. But if you believe in the existence of a moral law or standard and this law or standard is appealed to to condemn the actions of a person, even though that person is of the opinion that they are right, then you believe in a law or standard that is true for every person, regardless of their opinions, beliefs, or cultural practices. But if you believe in a law or standard that is true for every person regardless of their subjective opinion, then you believe in an objective moral law or standard. If you believe in an objective moral law or standard, then you believe in a moral law Giver who exists over and above those which are under said law. This law Giver is God, whom you deny in principle, but in reality, you live as if He exists.

Ravi Zarcharias is a bobble head.

No one had to tell you it's probably not a good idea to sleep with your neighbor's wife!

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

If by humanism, you mean belief that humans are of infinite worth, dignity, honor, and value, and that human life should be treated with the utmost respect and care and love regardless of one's race, creed, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and whatever else, then yes, I am a humanist. In this sense, Christ was the greatest humanist of all. I am a follower of His, therefore, it would not be incorrect to label me a humanist if by humanist you mean in the sense above.

If you mean humanism in some secular sense such as secular humanism, then clearly I am not an adherent of such doctrine.

My view of humanity is that our ultimate worth, value, and dignity lie in the fact that we were created in the very image of God and that means that each and every person on the face of this earth is created equal, with rights to respect, honor, and love.

Great statement there!

So you're a humanist insofar as your god tells you to be. So if he told to tomorrow to not value life, you'd have to follow his orders.

Does not follow. Big little word, IF. Your concern here is covered by that guy you may have heard something about, the founder of the Abrahamic religions, Abraham? That is the very first step in the Judeo Christian traditions, and you have not yet grasped its ramifications? He was told not to value life, as you put it. He decided not to do that. That was the right thing to do, and was very much unexpected at the time. This is the picture for how we are to become righteous, even.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ravi Zarcharias is a bobble head.

Really?

Hmm...

I thought he was a man....

No one had to tell you it's probably not a good idea to sleep with your neighbor's wife!

When I attained the age of accountability and intuitively knew right from wrong, I knew that I would not want someone messing with my girlfriend. So you are right, no one had to tell me that it was wrong.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Great statement there!



Does not follow. Big little word, IF. Your concern here is covered by that guy you may have heard something about, the founder of the Abrahamic religions, Abraham? That is the very first step in the Judeo Christian traditions, and you have not yet grasped its ramifications? He was told not to value life, as you put it. He decided not to do that. That was the right thing to do, and was very much unexpected at the time. This is the picture for how we are to become righteous, even.

Yeah, but if in a fit of jealousy, he told you to strike down every other person you saw, you'd have to, ... slaves to Christ 'n all.

I, on the other hand, am free to live moral all the time, because it's the right thing to do. I don't have to pretend I'm a sinner in the hands of an angry god.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you're a humanist insofar as your god tells you to be. So if he told to tomorrow to not value life, you'd have to follow his orders.

God never had to tell me to treat others the way I would want to be treated. That was something that I knew intuitively since I attained the age of accountability.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yeah, but if in a fit of jealousy, he told you to strike down every other person you saw, you'd have to, ... slaves to Christ 'n all.

I, on the other hand, am free to live moral all the time, because it's the right thing to do. I don't have to pretend I'm a sinner in the hands of an angry god.

Another big "if" from FrenchyBearpaw.....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are a physicist right?

Right.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Another big "if" from FrenchyBearpaw.....

And that bugs you? Good. It should bug you, that your morality comes from an external loci, one that is arbitrary, and depending on the whims of god, could change, at any moment.

As an atheist and humanist, I'm free to choose morality based on the best scenario for everyone, because it's intuitively right -evolved trait. Just watch young children play together, they'll let you know when they've been wronged.

Even Bill Craig has said publicly, that whatever the god of the bible may say, including wholesale ethnicide, is by definition, moral.

 

[Elioenai26]

And that bugs you?

Not at all!

I actually find it amusing.

Good. It should bug you, that your morality comes from an external loci, one that is arbitrary, and depending on the whims of god, could change, at any moment.

God does not change. I am sure you've heard that before?

As an atheist and humanist, I'm free to choose morality based on the best scenario for everyone, because it's intuitively right -evolved trait. Just watch young children play together, they'll let you know when they've been wronged.

Even Bill Craig has said publicly, that whatever the god of the bible may say, including wholesale ethnicide, is by definition, moral.

And Bill Craig was right. Whatever God says is moral since He is the locus and paradigm of morality and the source of all that is good and just and right.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Not at all!

I actually find it amusing.




God does not change. I am sure you've heard that before?



And Bill Craig was right. Whatever God says is moral since He is the locus and paradigm of morality and the source of all that is good and just and right.

Including ethnicide.

Personally, I consider ethnicide, no matter who orders it, to be morally reprehensible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Theodicy has you stumped?

Theodicy excuses God's inaction by making him cruel, lame, or stupid, or by redefining morality to make it all work out. Let's see which you do.

It's really not that hard a puzzle to figure out. The first step to grasping it is the recognition that death is not to be feared but is in fact the best possible option in many cases.

Ah, so you've gone for the 'redefine morality' approach: "Hey, it's not immoral that that little girl was raped - in fact, it was the best possible option!".

Somehow I find it unpalatable to excuse the rape of children by saying, "Well, it's just not important enough".

After that the whole concept of time. This is all confusing because we only see up to now. From God's vantage point, He not only sees the ending but is there already so our present distress is not so pressing.

How lovely for him. How does this excuse his inaction, exactly?

And yet He actually feels our every sorrow and is moved with compassion ...

Just not enough to do anything, right?

you have not figured out how to move His hand, and that might be your biggest problem with this.

My biggest problem is that suffering exists in the world - people are raped, murdered, enslaved, diseased, etc. If God exists, then he is either unable and/or unwilling to alleviate suffering - unless, of course, he doesn't exist.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Yeah, but if in a fit of jealousy, he told you to strike down every other person you saw, you'd have to, ... slaves to Christ 'n all.

Like I said, big little word, that IF. You're fabricating an impossible scenario. Yes, I know the Bible avails itself of anthropomorphisms, but this is only due to God reaching down to our level, so we might have some way of understanding what He's really trying to get across to us.

In other words - no chance of your worry here!

I, on the other hand, am free to live moral all the time, because it's the right thing to do. I don't have to pretend I'm a sinner in the hands of an angry god.

If you know Jane the Bane, we have been having a lengthy conversation, the point of which is you doing the right thing all the time is no different from Abraham doing that, even when it was unknown and unexpected. She's saying the Church forbids such a thing, and I'm pointing out this is the essence of the Faith.

Also, your John Edwards title there is eschewed by those who I feel have a good grasp on Scripture. (Not familiar with Ravi Zecharias) Using myself as an example, I know when I first turned to the Lord in earnest, the most difficult part was getting rid of bad ideas. On the other hand, there is a huge wealth of seriously good books on every Spiritual topic imaginable, and one advantage of having a Spiritual Father is they can direct you to what is appropriate at the time. This is an advantage I don't have, btw