James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[Hammster]

You know, the way some Christians handle these dialogs you'd think they don't actually want to fulfill their commission.

Mark 1:14-15

 

[cvanwey]

Since “moral” seems to be such a stumbling block for you, I will simplify the question.

Is it bad for the giver of life to take life?

Yea, I was stumbling BIG time I already answered this question - (at least twice)...

It does not matter what I think. If God DOES exist, He can do whatever He wants. I even elaborated for added flavor...

The 'stumbling block' seems to usurp from the fact that my follow up question(s) remain unanswered.

Is whatever God does moral?
Does God have the ability to act immorally?
What do YOU define as 'immoral'?

'Bad' can mean so many things, to so many people. And being that I'm a moral relativist, it's all par for the course really to me.

 

[cvanwey]

Oh, so you think that atheist I was referring to is wrong?

You are embarking upon another path of endless banter/exchange/retort my friend

(rhetorical) "Being that humans are 'fallible', how might one derive that any such conclusions are actually sound?" And all that junk.... (rhetorical)

But to address your question, I would need further information to even agree/disagree quite frankly. You will need to be very clear with your questioning; as I feel you might be 'leading the witness.'

 

[cvanwey]

We are not the ones that bring others to salvation. We are to go out and share the gospel. The rest is up to God and the person. The fact is, there are few that are called. Why? I don't know. We try to do our best to articulate what we know according to Scripture, we give opinions and use reason to discuss it all.

I have to ask, only because you were the one whom brought it up...

If you state you 'don't know', than how can you be so sure you ARE to 'share the Gospel'?

And if 'truth' can only be provided in revelation or in scripture, but both are scattered and/or incomplete, (as in erroneous Bible verses, and/or, no clear revelation to all), then what does this say about the 'truth giver?'

 

[Sam91]

What I find to be 'ignoring' is the fact that God appears to have cloned Himself, and for the clone to atone back to Him, and that many here do not simply seem to reconcile as such.... This is not a 'narrow' observation. Quite frankly, it has been a heated and widely discussed topic since the concept of a Holy Trinity was first brought forth. But if you care to broaden the question, then maybe we can also discuss the (possibilities) that the concept of a trinity was not invented until later :0

I do not like the question because it seems that if answered bluntly it is irreverent to God.

Our glorious Creator in Heaven is Holy, Righteous and Just. He can not just accept sin because that would be accepting evil as OK. There must be a penalty for it. However, He loves His creation but can't embrace sin. His Righteousness is at odds to that. Rather than condemning us all He has made clear a Way to be redeemed. He has pathed a way to be forgiven. He sent His Son, a part of Him, to the Earth to live that life. To witness to us and the to take upon His shoulders the debt we can not pay.

I am so thankful, it means that I can not talk about these things lightly. I wouldn't want to speak so about such an act without praise and gratitude in my heart and to run the risk of normalising and desensitising myself from the act that opens the door to my salvation.

 

[cvanwey]

I do not like the question because it seems that if answered bluntly it is irreverent to God.

Our glorious Creator in Heaven is Holy, Righteous and Just. He can not just accept sin because that would be accepting evil as OK. There must be a penalty for it. However, He loves His creation but can't embrace sin. His Righteousness is at odds to that. Rather than condemning us all He has made clear a Way to be redeemed. He has pathed a way to be forgiven. He sent His Son, a part of Him, to the Earth to live that life. To witness to us and the to take upon His shoulders the debt we can not pay.

I am so thankful, it means that I can not talk about these things lightly. I wouldn't want to speak so about such an act without praise and gratitude in my heart and to run the risk of normalising and desensitising myself from the act that opens the door to my salvation.

Please read all my prior posts and responses, as your latest reply basically addressed nothing I have brought to light thus far. It instead is meant to tug at one's emotions, which provides no litmus test for truth...

- There is no sacrifice when you give yourself back to yourself.
- There is no sacrifice when you go right back to where you started, in a resurrection - (with a 3 day lay-over in an uncomfortable place). But how 'bad' could it have been for such a powerful entity really?
- There is no sacrifice when you create yourself again, as a clone, and have such a clone atone back to you/yourself, while in heaven the entire time.

Remember, God could have created the Holy Five, Six, Seven, etc... At the end of the day, all such entities (Jesus, or any other Messiah(s) becomes all under the umbrella of one claimed 'righteous consciousness.' Otherwise, you are no longer worshiping under monotheism

 

[Hammster]

Yea, I was stumbling BIG time I already answered this question - (at least twice)...

It does not matter what I think. If God DOES exist, He can do whatever He wants. I even elaborated for added flavor...

The 'stumbling block' seems to usurp from the fact that my follow up question(s) remain unanswered.

Is whatever God does moral?
Does God have the ability to act immorally?
What do YOU define as 'immoral'?

'Bad' can mean so many things, to so many people. And being that I'm a moral relativist, it's all par for the course really to me.

So you’re saying that it’s not bad for God to take the life He gives?

 

[Sam91]

Please read all my prior posts and responses, as your latest reply basically addressed nothing I have brought to light thus far. It instead is meant to tug at one's emotions, which provides no litmus test for truth...

- There is no sacrifice when you give yourself back to yourself.
- There is no sacrifice when you go right back to where you started, in a resurrection - (with a 3 day lay-over in an uncomfortable place). But how 'bad' could it have been for such a powerful entity really?
- There is no sacrifice when you create yourself again, as a clone, and have such a clone atone back to you/yourself, while in heaven the entire time.

Remember, God could have created the Holy Five, Six, Seven, etc... At the end of the day, all such entities (Jesus, or any other Messiah(s) becomes all under the umbrella of one claimed 'righteous consciousness.' Otherwise, you are no longer worshiping under monotheism

I read all your posts after the one you quoted me in. I thought I had answered the question in the way that I chose to interprete it. With my not liking the narrowness of it.

Rather than trying to tug at emotions I was displaying my own emotion because I simply can not reduce it to some quibbling over scripture which is fruitless and not good for anyone (as much as I love scripture for providing direction). I have noticed today that this is in the apologetics section so this is not a suitable forum for me. I am no apologist, others are more capable and suited to it. I prefer conversations on a different playing field. Farewell.

 

[cvanwey]

So you’re saying that it’s not bad for God to take the life He gives?

Again, I'm a moral relativist. I was not in the initial part of the conversation. I asked you followup questions, after you asked such questions to others, if I recall correctly... I also answered the direct question you asked. But if you need further elaboration, before actually addressing my further questions, I'll bite...

I 'personally' think it's 'bad' to rip away babies from their families for no apparent reason, because all whom are left behind will have an unhealthy amount of grief and despair. For this very specific reason alone, among many others unmentioned, it would be considered 'bad' by my relative and humanistic standards of good/bad.

But as I stated prior, IF God does exist......

Is WHATEVER God does 'good'?

Also, does God have the ability to perform 'bad'?

And finally, what is YOUR definition of 'bad'?

 

[cvanwey]

I read all your posts after the one you quoted me in. I thought I had answered the question in the way that I chose to interprete it. With my not liking the narrowness of it.

Rather than trying to tug at emotions I was displaying my own emotion because I simply can not reduce it to some quibbling over scripture which is fruitless and not good for anyone (as much as I love scripture for providing direction). I have noticed today that this is in the apologetics section so this is not a suitable forum for me. I am no apologist and prefer conversations on a different playing field. Farewell.

Truth should be your 'playing field'. Good day.

 

[Hammster]

Again, I'm a moral relativist. I was not in the initial part of the conversation. I asked you followup questions, after you asked such questions to others, if I recall correctly... I also answered the direct question you asked. But if you need further elaboration, before actually addressing my further questions, I'll bite...

I 'personally' think it's 'bad' to rip away babies from their families for no apparent reason, because all whom are left behind will have an unhealthy amount of grief and despair. For this very specific reason alone, among many others unmentioned, it would be considered 'bad' by my relative and humanistic standards of good/bad.

But as I stated prior, IF God does exist......

Is WHATEVER God does 'good'?

Also, does God have the ability to perform 'bad'?

And finally, what is YOUR definition of 'bad'?

I guess that’s as close as I’ll get to an actual answer.

I can’t answer your questions until you give me your definitions of good and bad.

 

[cvanwey]

I guess that’s as close as I’ll get to an actual answer.

I can’t answer your questions until you give me your definitions of good and bad.

I know what you are doing, and why you are doing it; so let's play...

To make it simple, just replace the word 'morality' with 'well-being'. Because whether you believe in a higher power or not, both words are synonymous with one another in today's context.

So hopefully you will now answer, as I have more than fulfilled my end of the virtual bargain.

 

[Hammster]

I know what you are doing, and why you are doing it; so let's play...

To make it simple, just replace the word 'morality' with 'well-being'. Because whether you believe in a higher power or not, both words are synonymous with one another in today's context.

So hopefully you will now answer, as I have more than fulfilled my end of the virtual bargain.

Can you rephrase the questions using that term then?

 

[cvanwey]

Can you rephrase the questions using that term then?

'Can', meaning, am I able to? Sure

 

[Hammster]

'Can', meaning, am I able to? Sure

Okay. I guess it’s obvious now that you just want to play games, so are finished.

 

[cvanwey]

Okay. I guess it’s obvious now that you just want to play games, so are finished.

You have been 'playing games' the second you dodged my questions, which were >follow up questions< to your other (2) questions. The questions in which I answered.

So if you wish not to answer, that of course is your prerogative. But in leaving, please reference all the way back to post #285, where I entered only AFTER others were discussing moral concerns. I wanted YOUR take on morality.

So I will give it one last 'college try'...

Is whatever God does moral, or promote well-being?
Does God have the ability to perform immoral acts, or act against well-being?
What is your specific definition of morality?

Then if you fast-forward to post #351, you will find that your initial (2) questions asked, in which I then decided to intervene, are hypothetical. Why? Because, as stated prior, imagine if a Muslim asked you the very same questions....

Quite honestly, if the being DOES exist in question, it WOULD NOT MATTER what the person asked thought

 

[Hammster]

Is whatever God does moral, or promote well-being?

Yes, what God does is moral (righteous, good, for His glory). But it does not always promote well-being.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, what God does is moral (righteous, good, for His glory). But it does not always promote well-being.

You have just demonstrated my point in post #285.

"Taking your question for 'face-value', it would appear that whatever God does or commands IS moral; as God IS claimed as 'moral'. Furthermore, if you can demonstrate God's hand in such acts, as opposed to the more probable conclusion of humans doing stuff to other humans, and claiming 'God directives', then we can discuss; as I too agree that humans do not live forever and 'God calling his humans back to heaven', does not matter whether it is done at birth or at age 100

But before we can directly jump to this result, you have ALOT of work ahead of you; in demonstrating 1. and 2. above..."

 

[Hammster]

You have just demonstrated my point in post #285.

"Taking your question for 'face-value', it would appear that whatever God does or commands IS moral; as God IS claimed as 'moral'. Furthermore, if you can demonstrate God's hand in such acts, as opposed to the more probable conclusion of humans doing stuff to other humans, and claiming 'God directives', then we can discuss; as I too agree that humans do not live forever and 'God calling his humans back to heaven', does not matter whether it is done at birth or at age 100

But before we can directly jump to this result, you have ALOT of work ahead of you; in demonstrating 1. and 2. above..."

That’s your reply? Anything else?

 

[cvanwey]

That’s your reply? Anything else?

Sure...

I will now ask you an equally hypothetical question in return....

Was it 'immoral' for the hijackers of 911 to rid the world of up to 3000+ infidels, as air plane interceptors were claimed to have been instructed, by none other than Allah?

You see where I'm going with this....? I just feel bad it took over 100 posts to get to such a simple conclusion, when I pointed it out very clearly in my first response to you.