A Pondering of the Peculiar

[Strathos]

But, if the goal was to create war, it defiantly worked. The Crusades, inquisitions, etc., would have never occurred if it weren't for the bible.

How do you know that? Mankind has killed and warred with themselves since the beginning of recorded history, regardless of religion. If the Bible was never written and Christianity never existed, you honestly believe the world would be completely peaceful and there would be no wars? There easily could have been much greater and more devastating wars than there were with the presence of Christianity.

 

[CabVet]

How do you know that? Mankind has killed and warred with themselves since the beginning of recorded history, regardless of religion. If the Bible was never written and Christianity never existed, you honestly believe the world would be completely peaceful and there would be no wars? There easily could have been much greater and more devastating wars than there were with the presence of Christianity.

I completely agree with you here, BUT:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

The nature of religious wars and the people who fight them is completely different from that of "normal" wars.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I completely agree with you here, BUT:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

The nature of religious wars and the people who fight them is completely different from that of "normal" wars.

Just because some claim to be Christians, does not make it so. Romans says they will be known by their works, so those that do ungodly things are not Christians even if they are the heads of churches. Jesus said I do the work of my father, while others did the work of theirs, the devil.

They may have started wars claiming to be on the side of right and had God's blessing, but by their acts showed who they truly followed. Religious war or normal war, the end result is the same, people die. There is no justification for either.

 

[Strathos]

I completely agree with you here, BUT:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

The nature of religious wars and the people who fight them is completely different from that of "normal" wars.

Why is that? Some people are just screwed up and will use anything to justify wars or other evil deeds, including religion.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If so, where does the property "lie" come from? You have to define it first somewhere and somehow.

It comes under 'omnipotence' of course.

(Sigh, you still do not learn this very first item in a logic argument! I guess I should quit.)

That is because you haven't even tried to explain why you think it is logical for you to redefine omnipotence to include NOT being able to do something. All you have said is that you think it has to in this case. That is not good enough, as should be obvious to you, but apparently logic isn't your forte.

ALL the above issues HAVE valid logic arguments. Once the term God is properly defined, then everything followed is logical, EVERYTHING. Tell you what, that is why I accept Christianity. It is the most beautiful logic system in the universe.



Your questions were my questions. It took me two decades to discover logic solutions of them. You can't just browse the Bible and find the answers.

Then you should present your "logic arguments" rather than just claiming to have apparently resolved these problems to your own satisfaction. Given your record with logic, just making the claim isn't good enough.

Hope God will open the eyes of your mind.

Alternatively you could try making a logical argument.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I can. Do you want to try.

We'd like to see you present something more than empty claims.

(I am sort of done with that 46AND2 guy).

It's OK, juve, we know you have no valid argument to present. If it makes you feel better to claim that you have while strangely being unable to actually bring yourself to post it then bully for you, but you are fooling no one but yourself.

 

[CabVet]

Just because some claim to be Christians, does not make it so.

So, every time a Christian does something wrong, that person is no longer a Christian. Where did I hear that before? Oh, here: No true Scotsman.

 

[CabVet]

Why is that? Some people are just screwed up and will use anything to justify wars or other evil deeds, including religion.

And a lot of people that are not screwed up go to war and do screwed up things because of religion.

 

[46AND2]

If so, where does the property "lie" come from? You have to define it first somewhere and somehow.

(Sigh, you still do not learn this very first item in a logic argument! I guess I should quit.)



ALL the above issues HAVE valid logic arguments. Once the term God is properly defined, then everything followed is logical, EVERYTHING. Tell you what, that is why I accept Christianity. It is the most beautiful logic system in the universe.

Your questions were my questions. It took me two decades to discover logic solutions of them. You can't just browse the Bible and find the answers.

Hope God will open the eyes of your mind.

Then define your god for me, in a way that ISN'T ILLOGICAL.

You have utterly failed to do this.

Your definitions cannot contradict each other. Just like I can't be born in both 1950 (definition 1) AND 1970 (definition 2), your god cannot be both omnipotent (definition 1) AND incapable of lying (definition 2).

Here, I'll even use syllogism:

P1: omnipotent beings can do all things
P2: the Christian God cannot lie
C: the Christian God is not omnipotent

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then define your god for me, in a way that ISN'T ILLOGICAL.

You have utterly failed to do this.

Your definitions cannot contradict each other. Just like I can't be born in both 1950 (definition 1) AND 1970 (definition 2), your god cannot be both omnipotent (definition 1) AND incapable of lying (definition 2).

Here, I'll even use syllogism:

P1: omnipotent beings can do all things
P2: the Christian God cannot lie
C: the Christian God is not omnipotent

The closest that a person could get to a god like that is one that is omnipotent and chooses not to lie. I don't understand why god has to be incapable of malicious acts, doesn't it say more about a being's character to be capable of evil and choose not to partake in evil acts, as opposed to just being incapable of them? Not saying that the god of the bible was like that though, a lot of people were killed by that individual.

 

[Sayre]

Then define your god for me, in a way that ISN'T ILLOGICAL.

You have utterly failed to do this.

Your definitions cannot contradict each other. Just like I can't be born in both 1950 (definition 1) AND 1970 (definition 2), your god cannot be both omnipotent (definition 1) AND incapable of lying (definition 2).

Here, I'll even use syllogism:

P1: omnipotent beings can do all things
P2: the Christian God cannot lie
C: the Christian God is not omnipotent

I will give this a go.

I think the tri-omni-max ontology is juvenile and poorly thought out. I don't believe it describes the Christian God well at all. It is clearly contradictory as you point out (and contradictory in more ways than just this).

Perhaps a better way of describing God's ontology is Anselm's greatest possible being.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I will give this a go.

I think the tri-omni-max ontology is juvenile and poorly thought out. I don't believe it describes the Christian God well at all. It is clearly contradictory as you point out (and contradictory in more ways than just this).

Perhaps a better way of describing God's ontology is Anselm's greatest possible being.

Fair enough, although the idea of god lacks some much needed consistency, I accept your logical and thoughtful reaction to the challenge.

 

[Sayre]

In what way does it lack consistency? Do you mean internal consistency (not contradicting itself) or that people use the term God in a meaningful way that conveys the same concept?

Not a lot of believers have studied philosophy or natural theology enough to really do this - however - we all understand what we are talking about enough for you to know that you do not believe in it, and for them to know that they do believe in it.

Despite the vagueries and supposed inconsistencies, we know enough to "take sides".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just that a lot of people interpret god in different ways, is all. That is the consistency issue, nothing more. You would think that god would have had the bible written to be more concise, although, that assumes god was involved.

 

[Sayre]

Just that a lot of people interpret god in different ways, is all. That is the consistency issue, nothing more. You would think that god would have had the bible written to be more concise, although, that assumes god was involved.

Right, people across different cultures and ages have a different understanding of God. Is this really unexpected? The same observation occurs when we look at people's understanding of mathematics.

Some people see clearly. Some people are still in the basics and believe that pi is 22/7. Some people could make elegant proofs for the irrationality of root 2. Some people understand calculus for what it is and would explain it as a rather mechanical logical process - other people see the beauty of a Mandlebrot set and describe it as art. Some people think math is boring and prescriptive, others see it as incredibly creative. And yet, mathematics doesn't change. It is what it is.

I see beauty in a God who allows people to be on a journey and allows them to explore Him as they are. Not demanding perfection of understanding, not demanding that their understanding of Him be stripped of all culture. The diversity doesn't really bother me much at all. The diversity of humanity demands a diversity of understanding and no amount of logic will avoid that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True that, but some people will babble on until the day they die that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and any belief that isn't theirs is a lie.

 

[46AND2]

I will give this a go.

I think the tri-omni-max ontology is juvenile and poorly thought out. I don't believe it describes the Christian God well at all. It is clearly contradictory as you point out (and contradictory in more ways than just this).

Perhaps a better way of describing God's ontology is Anselm's greatest possible being.

What do you believe concerning the trinity, Jesus' 100% god/manhood, and the finite "suffering" of an infinite being?

 

[Sayre]

True that, but some people will babble on until the day they die that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and any belief that isn't theirs is a lie.

Ahh yes, arrogance - we see it in all people, of all beliefs (and even in those who have no beliefs).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ahh yes, arrogance - we see it in all people, of all beliefs (and even in those who have no beliefs).

It is a very human flaw. Gosh, the people who take the bible literally think that the earth is at the center of an entire universe created just for humanity, and that everything revolves around them. If that isn't the epitome of narcissism, self-centeredness, and arrogance, then I don't know what is.

 

[Sayre]

What do you believe concerning the trinity, Jesus' 100% god/manhood, and the finite "suffering" of an infinite being?

The finite suffering of an infinite being is an interesting question. I believe Jesus totally and completely died - every aspect of Him was dead. I don't believe that the God part stayed alive while the human part died, I simply think that Jesus died. I am not a substance dualist (as you might be able to tell from my prior comments).

I think Jesus was God on earth in human form, or at least, that is how the early Church understood Him to be.