"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[anonymous person]

The fact that they exist.

My being is so blatantly, unequivocally, axiomatically 'great', all apologetics are a meaningless non-concept. No argument regarding his existence or nature has ever even been imagined, because there was never a need.

Clearly though, there is a need for Yahweh-apologetics, or they wouldn't exist.

I think I get your point. Thanks for expounding upon it to clarify.

Would not the being who makes Himself known only to those who desire Him be greater than the One who makes His existence unquestionable to all, including those, who by being made aware of his existence, would suffer the loss of the ability to make signicant moral choices and live out there lives either in perpetual fear or perpetual resentment and horror?

Would not the chap, who out of respect for the woman he loves, make himself known to her only if she desired him and was willing to in turn love him?

Would it not be disrespectful for him to use his power and might to force her to acknowledge him against her will?

My God is greater than your parody because He respects us as persons and loves us and is not like Ted Bundy who used to take the objects of his affection forcefully and abuse them.

Yahweh, is love.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think I get your point. Thanks for expounding upon it to clarify.

Would not the being who makes Himself known only to those who desire Him be greater than the One who makes His existence unquestionable to all, including those, who by being made aware of his existence, would suffer the loss of the ability to make signicant moral choices and live out there lives either in perpetual fear or perpetual resentment and horror?

IMO, no.

Would not the chap, who out of respect for the woman he loves, make himself known to her only if she desired him and was willing to in turn love him?

Would it not be disrespectful for him to use his power and might to force her to acknowledge him against her will?

If she doesn't even know he exists, then there is no possibility of her returning his "love." Merely making himself known doesn't force her to reciprocate his "love."

My God is greater than your parody because He respects us as persons and loves us and is not like Ted Bundy who used to take the objects of his affection forcefully and abuse them.

Yahweh, is love.

What are the consequences for not reciprocating this "love"? Let's continue with your analogy. Suppose the woman does not return the man's affection. Is it "greater" for the man to leave her alone or to threaten her with torture? If your answer is the former then you've already conceived of a being "greater" than Yahweh.

 

[anonymous person]

IMO, no.

If she doesn't even know he exists, then there is no possibility of her returning his "love." Merely making himself known doesn't force her to reciprocate his "love."

What are the consequences for not reciprocating this "love"? Let's continue with your analogy. Suppose the woman does not return the man's affection. Is it "greater" for the man to leave her alone or to threaten her with torture? If your answer is the former then you've already conceived of a being "greater" than Yahweh.

Warning people that sin and rejection of the good will have consequences is not an instance of threatening someone with torture. God alone is Good. He knows that rejecting Him will not be in our best interest. In love He warns us. In love He sent His Son to die, to be sacrificed and crucified so that we would not have to bear the just punishment which our sins merit.

This is actually a good example of the devastating effects that sin can have on a person's mind and heart. Only someone with a damaged and seared conscience and hard and calloused heart could look at what God has done in sending Christ to die on the cross, who before, warned people about the reality of hell so that they might turn from their sins and repent and be forgiven, as an instance of threatening with torture.

You've just erected a common strawman that atheists use.

The strawman though is interesting. Not only does it indicate the utter depths of depravity one can fall into through sin, but when the atheist speaks of torture, he speaks of it with a very bad taste in his mouth. As if the idea is bitter to him, and one that any sane human should also recognize as being bitter and really, objectively wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Warning people that sin and rejection of the good will have consequences is not an instance of threatening someone with torture. God alone is Good. He knows that rejecting Him will not be in our best interest. In love He warns us. In love He sent His Son to die, to be sacrificed and crucified so that we would not have to bear the just punishment which our sins merit.

This is actually a good example of the devastating effects that sin can have on a person's mind and heart. Only someone with a damaged and seared conscience and hard and calloused heart could look at what God has done in sending Christ to die on the cross, who before, warned people about the reality of hell so that they might turn from their sins and repent and be forgiven, as an instance of threatening with torture.

You've just erected a common strawman that atheists use.

The strawman though is interesting. Not only does it indicate the utter depths of depravity one can fall into through sin, but when the atheist speaks of torture, he speaks of it with a very bad taste in his mouth. As if the idea is bitter to him, and one that any sane human should also recognize as being bitter and really, objectively wrong.

What strawman, Jeremy? I simply asked you what the punishment is for not reciprocating his "love"? I note that you answered none of my questions. So let's get back to those and your analogy. If the woman does not return the man's love, even though he has warned her of the consequences for not returning his love (he will torture her), is it good that she be punished?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The strawman though is interesting. Not only does it indicate the utter depths of depravity one can fall into through sin, but when the atheist speaks of torture, he speaks of it with a very bad taste in his mouth. As if the idea is bitter to him, and one that any sane human should also recognize as being bitter and really, objectively wrong.

I don't want to derail this thread, but if you want to talk about depravity, shall we discuss your answer to this question?

 

[anonymous person]

What strawman, Jeremy? I simply asked you what the punishment is for not reciprocating his "love"? I note that you answered none of my questions. So let's get back to those and your analogy. If the woman does not return the man's love, even though he has warned her of the consequences for not returning his love (he will torture her), is it good that she be punished?

You talked about torture. I addressed it.

I think the bible is clear what will happen to people who reject God. What does it say?

 

[anonymous person]

I don't want to derail this thread, but if you want to talk about depravity, shall we discuss your answer to this question?

You don't want to derail it, but you are.

I digress.

I already answered the question you asked.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You talked about torture. I addressed it.

I think the bible is clear what will happen to people who reject God. What does it say?

You didn't answer my question in relation to your analogy. Remember, you introduced it to argue that Yahweh wouldn't force himself on anyone. But isn't the threat of Hell, even if offered as a "warning," a form of coercion? So let's get back to the analogy: If the woman does not return the man's love, even though he has warned her of the consequences for not returning his love (he will torture her), is it good that she be punished? Yes or no?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't want to derail it, but you are.

Only to make a point about depravity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You didn't answer my question in relation to your analogy. Remember, you introduced it to argue that Yahweh wouldn't force himself on anyone. But isn't the threat of Hell, even if offered as a "warning," a form of coercion? So let's get back to the analogy: If the woman does not return the man's love, even though he has warned her of the consequences for not returning his love (he will torture her), is it good that she be punished? Yes or no?

To relate this back to the main point of the thread, is it "greater" for the man to leave her alone if she wants nothing to do with him or to threaten her with torture? If your answer is the former then you've already conceived of a being "greater" than Yahweh.

 

[anonymous person]

To relate this back to the main point of the thread, is it "greater" for the man to leave her alone if she wants nothing to do with him or to threaten her with torture? If your answer is the former then you've already conceived of a being "greater" than Yahweh.

It is greater to warn her what will happen, and if after warning her, she decides to proceed on her course, to let her go.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is greater to warn her what will happen, and if after warning her, she decides to proceed on her course, to let her go.

So it is "greater" for him to warn her about what he will do to her if she does not acquiesce to his demands for affection?

 

[anonymous person]

So it is "greater" for him to warn her about what he will do to her if she does not acquiesce to his demands for affection?

Strawman.

Correct it and I will address it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Strawman.

Correct it and I will address it.

In what way is it a strawman? Who established the punishment for failing to return Yahweh's "love" if not Yahweh?

 

[anonymous person]

In what way is it a strawman? Who established the punishment for failing to return Yahweh's "love" if not Yahweh?

First, you need to draw a line of distinction between the concept of consequence, and the concept of punishment.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First, you need to draw a line of distinction between the concept of consequence, and the concept of punishment.

Okay, who established the consequences for failing to return Yahweh's "love" if not Yahweh?

 

[anonymous person]

Okay, who established the consequences for failing to return Yahweh's "love" if not Yahweh?

God's nature determines what consequences will result if man fails to love Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God's nature determines what consequences will result if man fails to love Him.

Oh, so his nature is to blame? Wouldn't it be "greater" if he could control his own nature?

 

[anonymous person]

Oh, so his nature is to blame?

God is just and will by no means acquit the guilty. He is greater than the being who would not hold people accountable. We readily recognize some people as better parents than others when they hold their children accountable for the destruction of another person's property for instance. They are better parents than those people who continually attempt to shift the burden and blame away from their children onto someone else. Ever heard of "Affluenza Mom"?

Wouldn't it be "greater" if he could control his own nature?

God is love. God is Holy. God is just. These three, among others, necessitate that certain things happen in His world when men reject Him. So no, God is greater than a being who would not hold people accountable for what they do. In your mind, a being who does not hold people accountable and kind of just sits back and has this whole do what you will attitude is one who can "control his own nature". I see no control in that concept of yours. I see apathy.

If by controlling His own nature, you mean that He shows mercy, compassion, and is gracious and longsuffering to men who willfully despise Him and reject Him, then yes, He can control His own nature.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is just and will by no means acquit the guilty. He is greater than the being who would not hold people accountable.

But he doesn't hold them accountable if they return his "love."

We readily recognize some people as better parents than others when they hold their children accountable for the destruction of another person's property for instance. They are better parents than those people who continually attempt to shift the burden and blame away from their children onto someone else. Ever heard of "Affluenza Mom"?

This analogy doesn't serve your point well. Only Yahweh's "children" escape punishment, regardless of the extent or severity of their crimes.

God is love. God is Holy. God is just. These three, among others, necessitate that certain things happen in His world when men reject Him. So no, God is greater than a being who would not hold people accountable for what they do.

That's not the question I asked you. You said that God's nature determines the consequences for failing to return his "love." I asked, "wouldn't it be 'greater' if he could control his own nature?" I didn't even raise the issue of accountability.

If by controlling His own nature, you mean that He shows mercy, compassion, and is gracious and longsuffering to men who willfully despise Him and reject Him, then yes, He can control His own nature.

So, in answer to my question, Yahweh establishes the punishment for failing to return Yahweh's "love." And that punishment is everlasting torment. This means that the analogy I posed was not a strawman, contrary to what you said.