Search results

You still haven't addressed my argument, let alone tried to counter it. Very well. I have to presume that is because you can't, you know the logic stands up, and that therefore the conclusion is justified. You just won't admit it. So let us tackle this: It is quite clear here that Jesus here...

Hmmm. I am not sure your paraphrase does justice to the subtlety of the conundrum. Either with have God subservient to some higher power, or we have an arbitrary goodness. Which do you want? Or is there some way to resolve the dilemma that involves neither option? Best wishes, Strivax.

No, not this side of the grave. I find most people who ask God questions like those I mentioned just get their pre-existing prejudices confirmed in place of an answer. Best wishes, Strivax.

Grade card: English comprehension: C Critical thinking: Fail. Religious Studies: D Introduction to Philosophy: Fail Philosophy of Religion: Fail Best wishes, Strivax.

OK. I shall try one last time. I have stated my thinking, and given the reasons why I think it, and it is only right for you now to state yours, and explain why you think that. On what grounds (use all the hermeneutics and history and theology you want) do you disagree with me about the Amalek...

Faith is belief. And as the Archbishop Desmond Tutu pointed out, the opposite of faith is not doubt; it is certainty. As I have pointed out previously on this thread, there is a vast epistemological discontnuity between belief and knowledge. For a long time, philosophers defined knowledge as...

I don't disagree, necessarily. I'm just not entirely sure I have grasped the relevance of your observation to the thread. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your theme? Best wishes, Strivax.

Where I have quoted scripture, it is because it demonstrates or illustrates or supports the points I wish to make, and is pretty self-explanatory. And your 'hermeneutics' don't change any of that one iota. Best wishes, Strivax.

No, just that those who are absolutely convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that God exists are wrong to be so. There is no objective proof of God, and the subjective impessions of him that I have (and presumably you have) can always be explained in other ways; hallucinations, for example, or...

I suggest you (re?)read this thread from post #320 onwards. You will find I address the point you raise here, and the arguments I mount in defence of God in respect of the Amalek genocide apply, of course, to any such atrocity He is alleged to have ordered. Best wishes, Strivax.

This is more Philosophy of Religion than Theology, though theologians have by no means ignored the issue. The version originally attributed to Socrates (c470-399 BC) by Plato runs as follows: Is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods...

When I said 'poor', I meant nothing more than that He was a sinful wretch, just like the rest of us pathetic, benighted humans. That is the point I am getting at: that, at least in respect of the Amalek genocide, he wasn't doing God's will, at all. I have no idea. I don't see the relevance...

Do you think I would care one jot what you people thought of Him, if I didn't know Him? It might help if you addressed the points I raised in the post, rather than make quite erroneous claims about me. Finally, I think you need to decide whether you owe your loyalty to poor, human, fallible...

It just remains for me now to exonerate God of the accusation that His was the controlling mind responsible for this barbarity against Amalek. 1 Samuel 15: 1-2 KJV ie. The Bible says 'Samuel said God says do this thing', and not 'God said do this thing'. It does not take a seasoned barrister...

So, you don't know whether God exists. Neither do I. Nor does anyone. There is a vast epistemological discontinuity between what we believe, and what we know. But when I find myself assuming He does, and believe in that assumption, I find He confirms His presence to me in a whole myriad of...

Thanks for that, my friend. Best wishes, Strivax.

So, let me put it this way. If God is immoral, wouldn't it be the moral thing to oppose Him? And, as I have shown, the Bronze Age Jews did a whole lot of immoral things, allegedly ordered by God. So, either we must find their conception of God was wrong, or we should oppose God. What other...

By the way, on Revelations, I don't believe there is a Christian on Earth that understands that book (though a few nutters claim to), and it was included in scripture because the compilers, having started with the beginning of the world, wanted to close with it's end, and weren't too fussed...

So, as usual you fail to address the direct question I asked you, let alone say why (specifically) you disagree with what I posted. If I were writing your school report, you would get a resounding, 'must try harder!'. Best wishes, Strivax.

Hmmm. Still no answer, but I do get a sense we are beginning to make slight progress. So, my next question is this: If God is like you seem to think He is (coercive, an autocratic dictator, apt to order genocides at whim), then surely it is our moral duty to oppose Him, how ever, when ever...