"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[anonymous person]

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

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

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.

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.

God holds His children to a higher standard of accountability than those who are not His children. To whom much is given much will be required. This contradicts your idea that just so long as people love God, they are not held accountable for their choices and actions.

Secondly, if you reject God then you are choosing to live apart from Him. It is either heaven or hell my friend. You have an aversion to the idea that there are only two destinies for men when they die.

Would not heaven be torment for you if you were to spend eternity there with the same mindset you have now?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God holds His children to a higher standard of accountability than those who are not His children. To whom much is given much will be required. This contradicts your idea that just so long as people love God, they are not held accountable for their choices and actions.

Secondly, if you reject God then you are choosing to live apart from Him. It is either heaven or hell my friend. You have an aversion to the idea that there are only two destinies for men when they die.

Would not heaven be torment for you if you were to spend eternity there with the same mindset you have now?

You've basically conceded my point in its entirety. In the analogy, he is the man warning the woman of what he will do to her if she does not return his affections.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So no, God is greater than a being who would not hold people accountable for what they do..

Then you've already conceived of a being "greater" than Yahweh. He doesn't hold people accountable for what they do, but for what they believe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would not heaven be torment for you if you were to spend eternity there with the same mindset you have now?

"You won't like me when I'm angry."

 

[anonymous person]

You've basically conceded my point in its entirety. In the analogy, he is the man warning the woman of what he will do to her if she does not return his affections.

He will allow her to go her own way and get what he warned her she would get in rejecting him.

God will allow you to go your own way and get what He warned you you would get in rejecting Him.

You will be either one of two persons in the end. The one who says to God, "your will be done." Or, the one to whom God says, "your will be done."

Once again. You need to keep in mind, Christ has made it possible for you to not have to be punished for your sins. If you reject Him then in essence you are telling God you have too much "integrity" to accept this offer. That you can handle it on your own.

God will then say, have it as you wish.

 

[anonymous person]

Men's pride and "moral and intellectual integrity" keeps them out of heaven my friend. It was what caused Lucifer to lose his place.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He will allow her to go her own way and get what he warned her she would get in rejecting him.

Yeah, he warned her "she'd get it." But he's only doing it because he "loves" her.

 

[anonymous person]

Yeah, he warned her "she'd get it." But he's only doing it because he "loves" her.

Right.

Don't you agree that God would allow people the freedom to choose?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Right.

Don't you agree that God would allow people the freedom to choose?

Does the woman in the analogy have the freedom to choose?

 

[anonymous person]

Does the woman in the analogy have the freedom to choose?

Of course.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course.

So she is to blame if she is tortured for not acquiescing to his demands since she was warned (by him) of what he would do her if she refused to return his affection?

 

[Chesterton]

For a being to be anything it must exist, in the first place. So this question makes no sense at all.

Re-read it. I asked about a conceivable being.

 

[quatona]

Re-read it. I asked about a conceivable being.

Whether a being is conceivable or unconceivable - it must exist in order to be a being.
What - by means of semantics wizardry - you keep trying to evading to admit is the fact that you aren´t comparing two beings but an idea and being.
Understandably so, because this admission would collapse the entire argument immediately.

 

[Chesterton]

Whether a being is conceivable or unconceivable - it must exist in order to be a being.
What - by means of semantics wizardry - you keep trying to evading to admit is the fact that you aren´t comparing two beings but an idea and being.
Understandably so, because this admission would collapse the entire argument immediately.

I'm not making or even supporting any argument. I asked you a question, at your request re-asked it another way, and you're still avoiding answering. And I'm the one engaging in wizardry?

 

[quatona]

I'm not making or even supporting any argument.

Ah sorry. (I was talking about the ontological argument. Glad to hear you aren´t trying to employ it.)

I asked you a question, at your request re-asked it another way, and you're still avoiding answering. And I'm the one engaging in wizardry?

Yes, the question is - no matter how you worded or re-worded it - loaded with faulty use of language. It is unanswerable. I have explained to you why and how, several times.
As soon as you can come up with a question that doesn´t require me to accept the illogicality that there are "things that aren´t things" or "there are beings that don´t exist" (or any other such nonsense) I might be able to answer it.

 

[Chesterton]

Ah sorry. (I was talking about the ontological argument. Glad to hear you aren´t trying to employ it.)

Yes, the question is - no matter how you worded or re-worded it - loaded with faulty use of language. It is unanswerable. I have explained to you why and how, several times.
As soon as you can come up with a question that doesn´t require me to accept the illogicality that there are "things that aren´t things" or "there are beings that don´t exist" (or any other such nonsense) I might be able to answer it.

I didn't look at the other thread you referenced in the OP, but I can imagine why you and the other fellow might have had difficulty communicating. And here, you make an OP inviting a question then (same as in the "Essence As Attribute" thread) refuse to answer based on the question being illegitimate. As they say, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Maybe you should make a new thread where you ask yourself a proper question, then answer it, and we can see if you have something to say.

 

[quatona]

And here, you make an OP inviting a question

I didn´t ask for a question. Of course, that doesn´t mean you aren´t welcome to ask questions - but it´s not like this thread was an invitation to do so.

then refuse to answer based on the question being illegitimate.

Well, what can I do? The question is nonsensical - so I can´t answer it. The best I can possibly do is to explain to you how and why it´s nonsensical.

As they say, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Maybe you should make a new thread where you ask yourself a proper question, then answer it, and we can see if you have something to say.

Thanks for the suggestion - but I am pretty sure I will keep making threads in a way that matches my intentions and my questions - not yours.
If, however, you feel that any of the questions in the OP are not proper, you are welcome to explain how and why they aren´t proper.

 

[anonymous person]

So she is to blame if she is tortured for not acquiescing to his demands since she was warned (by him) of what he would do her if she refused to return his affection?

I don't see it being an issue of "blame" really.

I see it as an issue of her wanting something and getting what she wants.

 

[anonymous person]

This might help you quatona:

http://www.philpapers.org/rec/LEFWPB

 

[Locutus]

I don't see it being an issue of "blame" really.

I see it as an issue of her wanting something and getting what she wants.

I can almost not believe I'm reading this. The corrupting power of religion appears to know no bounds.