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

[Hammster]

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.

You said you are a moral relativist. You tell me. Was it bad?

 

[cvanwey]

You said you are a moral relativist. You tell me. Was it bad?

I already did. If Allah exists and commanded it, it doesn't matter what I think. If Allah doesn't exist, the answer is fairly obvious

Your turn...

 

[Hammster]

I already did. If Allah exists and commanded it, it doesn't matter what I think. If Allah doesn't exist, the answer is fairly obvious

Your turn...

Once you actually answer a question (not just respond to a post) I’ll answer.

I’ll make it easy for you. Taking God out of it, was 9/11 “immoral” (the word you used)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.'

No, I think I'm done. I'll just continue to read the 1,000+ books I've got and believe the way that I want to, applying rationality and analysis the way I want to, and exploring the environs of reality and the existential possibilities of theology also the way I want to. You go do whatever it is that you want to do and read (or not read) whatever it is that you do or do not want to read and/or think about.

I'm done with your games. In fact, I think I'm done with not only your games, but also with those of @Nicholas Deka and @Nihilist Virus and maybe those of @DogmaHunter.

May you all otherwise have peace and prosper.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?'

We only know what is given to us in Scripture and revelation. Scripture tells us to share the Gospel.
It says that the Truth Giver is giving us what He intends to give us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IF there is no God as you claim,

Hold up there. When and where did I supposedly claim that?
Please don't lie about what I did and didn't claim.

and morality is an evolved behavior, then the slaughter of infants in history is just a way of life at the time. Morality has no objective standard and so it wasn't immoral as the moral standard of that day allowed for such things to occur.

You shoot yourself in the foot here. Because in this case, it was the "biblical standard" that allowed for it.

I'll go further and submit that only irrational beliefs would allow for such things without them being recognised as immoral.

There is no rational worldview that can excuse the massive slaughter of toddlers.

Yes, a case an be made that back in the day, people might not have known better. Unsurprising since back in the day, society was infested with all kinds of irrational beliefs.

But today, we DO know better.
Knowledge of the world, is an important/required aspect of moral evaluation.

If you don't understand the consequences of your actions, or the nature of reality, then it becomes impossible to make correct moral evaluations about those subjects.

So, I guess you are saying that your God, didn't know any better either.
It's almost like the morality found in that book, reflects the morality of the primitive people that conjured it. Which is exactly what I would expect, as an atheist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't say that red IS the light spectrum; and forgive me for speaking about it phenomenologically.

Obviously, I'm not trying to give a lesson on the physical science (wavelengths/frequencies) of the Light Spectrum ... duh!

If you want that, then here's something you already know!:

Light: Electromagnetic waves, the electromagnetic spectrum and photons

The point is, the way that I conceptualize the Logos of God is as a kind of "frequency" within the overall being of God; the Logos of God is not a separate "part" of God, just like we might say that your mouth isn't a separate part of you. Rather, like your whole mouth in relation to the rest of your body, the Logos of God is an integral physical expression of God within and from God, one that can even be manifested separately for a time on a more "human level" (i.e. as Jesus).

Of course, I could be dead wrong since no one can actually capture God and put Him under a microscope. So, for all the 'haters' out there, hate away on my conception here.

I'm not hating. I'm just saying that it makes no sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Still didn’t answer the question.

I’ll wait.

It seems to me that whenever the answer isn't to your liking, you just say that it wasn't answered.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God atoned to himself because He was sorry for making something that fell and needed to be restored. This makes sense if we hold to the belief that God created man and then man sinned, therefore God would have to fix the problem by intervening in some way not only for us, but for His glory as well.

An all powerfull, all intelligent, all knowing being did something and then..... was sorry?

Sounds incredibly self-contradicting.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scripture does not address this directly, but from my knowledge of God they would go to heaven,

Then the best way to prevent souls from ending up in hell, is to keep silent about christianity and have it become lost in the pages of history.

BUT would not have completed the earthly objective of all mature adults which is sad, but understandable.

Why would that matter, if the goal is to end up in an eternal paradise?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where in the Bible does it say God has not always been all knowing?



We can't be created perfect because we are not God. God knew we would fall because we had no way to be perfect unless we were covered by Jesus. Perfection is only accomplished by God and extended to us through the gift of Jesus taking our sin and perfecting us by covering us.

In context of that mythology, we are created exactly as that all-powerfull omnipotent god wanted it.

As The Hitch said: created sick and commanded to be well

 

[Hammster]

It seems to me that whenever the answer isn't to your liking, you just say that it wasn't answered.

No, that’s not the case. My post has been responded to, but the actual question hasn’t been answered. Most of the responses have been other questions, or folks thinking they know where it’s going and trying to jump 10 steps ahead. But there’s been no direct answer. Not even from you, and I actually asked you the question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's only a problem if God has always been all knowing, however, in Genesis God seems very surprised to learn of A/E's sin. He may have known it was possible, but knowing something is possible is not the same as knowing it happened. When you know something's possible, you put measures in place to prevent it, which God did in Genesis, yet they still sinned.

It seems to me that the opposite is true.

Instead of putting in measures to prevent it, it seems he rather put in measures to make sure it actually happened.

First, he creates clueless humans. "Clueless" in the sense of not knowing right from wrong and being some kind of blank slates.

Then he puts a tree in the middle of their home with nice looking fruit and tells them not to touch it. Like putting candy in from of a 3-year old that he can't touch. I have a 3-year old: I guarantee you that eventually, he'll take the candy.

On top of it all, he also allows the very embodiment of evil in said garden, who's free to talk to them and try and get them to eat the fruit anyways.

That would be like putting a baby sitter next to that toddler who can't touch the candy, who keeps telling the toddler that it's okay to eat the candy.

What did you think was going to happen?

How is this "taking measures to prevent it"?
Taking such measures would rather be, NOT putting the candy there or at the very least, not allowing someone in there who keeps telling the toddler that it's okay to eat the candy - and of whom you actually KNOW would make it a sport to make the toddler eat the candy.

So, I suggest that the very opposite of your claim is true.
He didn't put in measures to prevent it. Instead, he did everything he could to make it happen, short of himself saying they should eat the fruit.

The entire story reads like a gigantic trap. They never really stood a chance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First of all, we don't know for certain that even those who have not heard the word are ignorant of Jesus.

Yes we do.
When the conquistadores arrived in the America's, none of them knew about Jesus.
In fact, none of them even knew about humans at the other side of the waters.

If they DID know about Jesus, now that would have been remarkable.
But they didn't.

One only knows about Jesus when another human tells you that story or hands you that book.

I know of a case where there was a man on an island with a very small population who was encountered by missionaries and the man knew about Jesus. No one had told him, he said that Jesus appeared to him and told him that he could be saved.

I know of a case where anecdotes are just anecdotes without any value whatsoever.

"a man" on "an island".
Yes, that's not vague at all.
That so convinces me.

So as far as Christian's go, we are suppose to share the gospel. How that turns out with those that haven't is outside of our own knowledge.

Yes. Don't think to much about the hard questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To elaborate upon your point, are you saying that God directly reveals to all whom He knows will never hear of Him by human voice? If not, you have just added yet another element of confusion into the mix

Worse even.... in that case, you definatly don't want to preach "the word".
Because an individual revelation from GOD HIMSELF, would be a lot more efficient to convert people as opposed to a mere human preaching untestable fantastical beliefs.

I'm guessing God himself would be a lot better at convincing people then mere humans.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

/facepalm

This whole time, he's been asking YOU what you mean by the word, as YOU are the one that used it in your question.

 

[Hammster]

/facepalm

This whole time, he's been asking YOU what you mean by the word, as YOU are the one that used it in your question.

The question was to you. Why haven’t you answered it?

Immoral is not an ambiguous word.

 

[Hammster]

As a reminder, here’s what started it.

Only if He was an immoral monster.

I think an excellent case can be made to demonstrate he is, yes.

He's done and ordered things that would absolutely be labeled pure evil if a human leader would do the same.

Like genocide, infanticide, etc.

Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back? Was there a promise made somewhere?

You didn’t seem to have a problem with the word.

 

[Hammster]

---Staff Edit---

I owe you an apology. I missed post 280. I’ve now read it, and you didn’t answer the question. You only responded to the post.

Let me see if I can guess what your answer would be, based on your responses and you can tell me if I’m correct or not.

Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back?

You say because it is.

Am I correct?

 

[devolved]

availeth little.

Ask the six million Jews who were snuffed out by the Nazis.

What? Did God suddenly change his mind about prayer? Maybe he isn't as involved in the affairs of the world as some people think.

A reading of the ancient custom through the lens of your present day assumptions... availeth even less