Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I supported all of my claims with proof and evidence. Problem? And if I didn't, then show me, and I will do everything I can to add external citations and support.
You claimed

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.
Where is your evidence for this claim?

Burden of Proof necessarily requires a Burden of Refutation to follow. If Burden of Refutation is not met, then the proof and evidence remains unrefuted. Not "assumed true," mind you, just unrefuted.

I know my rights. ;)
So what? No one is obligated to respond to any claim. And you said yourself that in no way means the claim has been shown to be true.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Previously you said only CHRINOS say you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven. I take it you changed your mind.

No, there's a huge distinction. CHRINOs will claim you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven, and that you can succeed in and of yourself. I claim you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven, and you will always fail in and of yourself.

So you won't go to heaven?

No. No one can without the interceding Grace of the Holy Spirit. I'm a Calvinist, remember?

That's odd. In the verses I quoted, Jesus was asked which commandments one needs to follow to get to heaven. Jesus responded by listing six of them. If he meant all of them, why didn't he say all of them?

Because you're allergic to reading the entire story. The Rich Young Ruler stated he followed them all from his youth, which isn't true, because Jesus followed up with the one thing he lacked.

If there are a list of commands one must follow to get to heaven, it would be nice if the list Jesus gave was complete. Should he have included the command to not wear clothes of two different fabrics? Should he have included the command to give to everyone that asks?

Inevitably, someone's going to fall short.

So Jesus goes to heaven alone?

He'd certainly have every right to, but Jesus instead offered Himself up as a substitutionary sacrifice to the Father, so that anyone who believes in Jesus is not condemned--as if that man had never sinned. The one who believes in the Lamb of God is covered. Because Jesus is his substitutionary sacrifice.

Wait, what? God commanded Abraham to sin, and yet Abraham is being commended for setting out to do that sin?

Then you conveniently lop-off the actual conclusion of the story. :rolleyes:

The focus was on Abraham's highest priority: His faith in God, or his love for his son Isaac. Abraham chose wisely, concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. - Hebrews 11:19

When you post gobblygoop like this, nobody know if you think Abraham was right or wrong to do what God said.

That's because you're too busy chasing around; trying to hard to find someone to "get." o_O

Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself. God didn't allow that; it wasn't necessary. You keep pretending like what was in-reality a close call wasn't a close call.

Ah, so if I were to wrong you, you would not require me to sacrifice a lamb or a son to make things right?

Well, OK then.

Because the sacrifice was already made.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
OK, so you think it was sin for Abraham to set out to kill his son. But you also commend Abraham for setting out to kill his son.

Wait, what?

This was covered in my previous post.

But in this case, regarding this sin, you seem to be for it.

That's not how the story ended. God was still against it.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
You claimed

You forgot the part where I'm standing wide-open to objective correction.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

Your spam posting just to keep your foot in the door. <-- And if I'm wrong, then it's responding out of sheer pride. Because you have zero objective arguments here.

So what? No one is obligated to respond to any claim. And you said yourself that in no way means the claim has been shown to be true.

Then "unrefuted." I'm perfectly okay with that takeaway. :sunglasses:
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You forgot the part where I'm standing wide-open to objective correction.
Until you provide the evidence I have nothing to object to.

Your spam posting just to keep your foot in the door. <-- And if I'm wrong, then it's responding out of sheer pride. Because you have zero objective arguments here.
All I asked for was evidence for your claim and you gave me this.

Then "unrefuted." I'm perfectly okay with that takeaway. :sunglasses:
Because you won't provide the evidence for your claim. If you did please point me to it.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Until you provide the evidence I have nothing to object to.

Evidence for what? God? All you did was try to furiously "nuh-uh" your way out of my modus ponens, which isn't evidence, but rather (deductive) proof.

That is, if I can keep all you atheists straight. All the same old arguments get to be a real blur after awhile and you all start to look the same.

My (separate) evidence is the Simulation Argument, if you wanna go another round.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Evidence for what? God? All you did was try to furiously "nuh-uh" your way out of my modus ponens, which isn't evidence, but rather (deductive) proof.

That is, if I can keep all you atheists straight. All the same old arguments get to be a real blur after awhile and you all start to look the same.

My (separate) evidence is the Simulation Argument, if you wanna go another round.
Sigh, I asked you directly in post 482 for evidence for this claim:

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.

I asked specifically for evidence for this claim that you said you had. Now where is it?
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
I asked specifically for evidence for this claim that you said you had. Now where is it?

Every-single-time-you-post. It's pretty obvious. If you're not posting any content, then you're just making it about you. Come on now.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Every-single-time-you-post. It's pretty obvious. If you're not posting any content, then you're just making it about you. Come on now.
Please show me where the evidence is for the claim you made. This is all I am asking. If you cannot then please retract the claim.

Here is your claim:

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, there's a huge distinction. CHRINOs will claim you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven, and that you can succeed in and of yourself. I claim you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven, and you will always fail in and of yourself.
Either way, both of you claim that you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven. That is the point.

How are you doing on the commandment to keep Saturday holy?
No. No one can without the interceding Grace of the Holy Spirit. I'm a Calvinist, remember?
Ah, you keep the commandments because you have Grace.

How are you doing on the commandment to give to everyone that asks of you?

Because you're allergic to reading the entire story. The Rich Young Ruler stated he followed them all from his youth, which isn't true, because Jesus followed up with the one thing he lacked.
Red herring.

Again, when Jesus was asked which commandments one needs to follow to go to heaven, he listed six. You say you need to keep all of them. Which is it? Those six, or all of them?

Who should I believe? You or Jesus?

If there is going to be a final, I would like a clear answer as to what is going to be on the final.

He'd certainly have every right to, but Jesus instead offered Himself up as a substitutionary sacrifice to the Father, so that anyone who believes in Jesus is not condemned--as if that man had never sinned.
Except if one believes and then fails to keep the commandments, then there is a problem, yes? You have told us if one fails to keep the commandments, he will not go to heaven.

How are you doing on the commandment not to bear false witness?


The one who believes in the Lamb of God is covered.
Does that allow him to go to heaven without keeping all the commandments? That would contradict what you said elsewhere.



Then you conveniently lop-off the actual conclusion of the story. :rolleyes:
In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?

Now back to my point. You say God commanded Abraham to sin by killing Isaac. You say Abraham sinned when he set out to kill Isaac. And yet you praise Abraham for sinning.

How is it that you come here and repeatedly praise a man for sinning?

You could settle the whole question with a simple answer. Do you or do you not think it was wrong to set out to kill Isaac? You are paralyzed every time I ask that question. You refuse to answer.

If your morality cannot tell me whether it is right or wrong to take your son and bind him on an alter with the intention of plunging a knife through his heart and burning the body as a sacrifice to God, what good is your morality?
The focus was on Abraham's highest priority: His faith in God, or his love for his son Isaac.
My focus is on what Abraham did. Genesis says he set out to kill his son. And you cannot tell me whether you think Abraham was right or wrong to set out to kill his son.
Abraham chose wisely, concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. - Hebrews 11:19
Which seems to say you think Abraham was right to set out to kill his son. But then in your next post you will go ballistic declaring that Abraham sinned when he set out to kill his son. I'm confused.

That's because you're too busy chasing around; trying to hard to find someone to "get." o_O
I am not trying to get you. I am trying to understand you. Get it?
Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself.
Does that mean Abraham sinned willingly?

Do you or do you not approve of Abraham sinning? Are you, like Coolidge's pastor, against sin? Or are you for it?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The evidence is your constant no-content posting.
So your convincing evidence for this claim:

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.

is your subjective opinion of my posts? That is bad evidence. Even if my posts had no content (however you define that) it is a leap to believe that I am here to mark my territory and keep activism visibly prominent from this evidence you just provided. How have you ruled out a multitude of other possible reasons?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You're stating this alleged "need" as a moral value that everyone naturally has. But if that were the case, then we wouldn't need law enforcement. You can't account for your claim, you're simply assuming it.
That is not true. We all need each other, but some people try to cheat the system and take advantage of others. That is why we need laws to make society work.

Everybody knows this. All the remote tribes know this. We need laws to make society work. I find it amazing that you would fool yourself into believing that only Christians know that we need moral laws to make society work.

Some have actually done this. This isn't a question of utility. It's a question of your failure to derive a value from a fact.
Please give me the name of somebody who lived a good life for months on end without one thing he got from another person.


“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”
― Vladimir Lenin

“Genuine equality means not treating everyone the same, but attending equally to everyone’s different needs.”
― Terry Eagleton, Why Marx Was Right
Just as I thought. You cannot find one socialist who claims it is morally bad to expect that people are going to want something in it for themselves. You just made that up. You could provide no quotes. I shall assume your claim is void.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Either way, both of you claim that you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven. That is the point.

You're not reading. Here, I'll post it again:

No, there's a huge distinction. CHRINOs will claim you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven, and that you can succeed in and of yourself. I claim you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven, and you will always fail in and of yourself.

^ "Failure" = NOT going to Heaven. If everyone always fails, then it is still impossible to go to Heaven. Yet God will not lower His Divine standard.

How are you doing on the commandment to keep Saturday holy?

No worries.

Colossians 2:11-17
Hebrews 4:1-11

How is Jesus our Sabbath Rest? | GotQuestions.org

Ah, you keep the commandments because you have Grace.

It's called gratitude. But it doesn't earn salvation, because Grace (un-merited favor) came first.

How are you doing on the commandment to give to everyone that asks of you?

About as well as I'm doing by not bragging about it. -Matthew 6:3

Red herring.

Pretty sure that's the passage you were (obliquely) referring to.

Again, when Jesus was asked which commandments one needs to follow to go to heaven, he listed six. You say you need to keep all of them. Which is it? Those six, or all of them?

How do you know the Rich Young Ruler didn't interrupt Jesus? How do you know that Jesus knew the man couldn't even get past 6? Coveting is obviously missing from the list. That doesn't mean that Jesus suddenly allows coveting, but the Rich Young Ruler failed to remember it.

Who should I believe? You or Jesus?

I'm pretty consistent with Jesus here:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-19​

If there is going to be a final, I would like a clear answer as to what is going to be on the final.

It's a one-question test: "Will you confess that you have personally failed to fulfill the entire Law (God's standard of Holiness), and instead place your trust in Jesus as your perfectly righteous substitute?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Except if one believes and then fails to keep the commandments, then there is a problem, yes? You have told us if one fails to keep the commandments, he will not go to heaven.

Cart, meet horse. Salvation isn't based on merit. "Grace" means "un-merited favor." You can't earn it.

How are you doing on the commandment not to bear false witness?

Where are my accusers?

Does that allow him to go to heaven without keeping all the commandments? That would contradict what you said elsewhere.

Only because you're confused about how the process works. And it only works in one direction. First grace --> then salvation --> and then works that demonstrate your salvation after being grafted-in to Christ. John 15:5, "for without Me you can do nothing." That's just good old-fashioned Protestantism.

In other words, it's not a works-based faith. But rather, "Faith works." First you're saved by grace through faith alone --> then that genuine faith will show works.

In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?

Then there's nothing to accuse Abraham of. The Moral Judge of the Entire Universe literally pulled the plug before it got that far.

Now back to my point. You say God commanded Abraham to sin by killing Isaac. You say Abraham sinned when he set out to kill Isaac. And yet you praise Abraham for sinning.

No, you're contradicting yourself. "In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?"

You could settle the whole question with a simple answer. Do you or do you not think it was wrong to set out to kill Isaac? You are paralyzed every time I ask that question. You refuse to answer.

How are you doing on the commandment not to bear false witness? I clearly answered "sin" numerous times.

If your morality cannot tell me whether it is right or wrong to take your son and bind him on an alter with the intention of plunging a knife through his heart and burning the body as a sacrifice to God, what good is your morality?

You can't honestly accuse God (my morality) if God doesn't exist. :p

My focus is on what Abraham did. Genesis says he set out to kill his son. And you cannot tell me whether you think Abraham was right or wrong to set out to kill his son.

Then you admitted, "In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?" How many parents have seriously considered killing their own children, but in the end don't do it at all? I guess you're not a parent. Many successful comedians have entire bits on that one subject alone.

Which seems to say you think Abraham was right to set out to kill his son. But then in your next post you will go ballistic declaring that Abraham sinned when he set out to kill his son. I'm confused.

I'm confused that you're trying to force faux-accusations about three individuals you clearly don't believe existed. If your accusation is real, then you're just mad at God. That's all. No worries. If your accusation is not real, then I have nothing to worry about.

I am not trying to get you. I am trying to understand you. Get it?

I've heard that one before. That's the typical cover-story of an atheist. If you were trying to understand me, you wouldn't be trying so hard to make your (fake) prosecution stick.

Does that mean Abraham sinned willingly?

You yourself admitted that in the end, he never sinned at all:

In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
So your convincing evidence for this claim:

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.

is your subjective opinion of my posts? That is bad evidence. Even if my posts had no content (however you define that) it is a leap to believe that I am here to mark my territory and keep activism visibly prominent from this evidence you just provided.

^ No relevant content here. You're only proving I'm right the more you do this. You would not be here at all if you weren't an activist. And you wouldn't be pushing so hard either. Seriously, how many days has it been now? Just lay off the throttle, and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

Besides, how do you know I'm not actively leveraging your own personal pride here? This is a public forum. I'm literally using your outrage to prove my point. Get it?

How have you ruled out a multitude of other possible reasons?

I've ruled them out as imaginary placeholders for actual reasons that you've failed to suggest.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
That is not true. We all need each other,

Kind-of egostistical to imply that everyone needs you.
Kind-of pathetic to imply that you need everyone.

Besides that, you don't have any justification for assuming such an assertion. All you can do is hope against hope that I'll agree with it, so you can leech off of my morality. But you're an atheist, remember?

Everybody knows this. All the remote tribes know this. We need laws to make society work. I find it amazing that you would fool yourself into believing that only Christians know that we need moral laws to make society work.

You're conflating again. Ethics are societal. Morals are universal.

Please give me the name of somebody who lived a good life for months on end without one thing he got from another person.

Again, you're trying to substitute an appeal to utility as a failed solution to the Is-Ought problem.

Just as I thought. You cannot find one socialist who claims it is morally bad to expect that people are going to want something in it for themselves. You just made that up. You could provide no quotes. I shall assume your claim is void.

^ Proof of the atheist "gotcha game." You simply hate to read. That is exactly what they're saying. Just because they didn't say it in your exact words doesn't mean you scored some cheap points on me. :rolleyes:
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You're not reading. Here, I'll post it again:
Excuse me, my point was that you agree with them that you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven. You tell me you disagree on whether people can do that on their own.

What is wrong with mentioning a point of agreement? You both agree you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven.

I'm pretty consistent with Jesus here:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-19​
So Jesus taught here that you need to follow every Old Testament law. That apparently includes the law not to mix fabrics, the law to keep Saturday holy, and the law to kill people that disobey their parents, huh?

But then, regarding the Sabbath you write:

No worries.

Colossians 2:11-17
Ah, so the writer of Colossians is least in the Kingdom of Heaven? Jesus said if you teach people to break one little law, you are least in the Kingdom. Colossians ignores Jesus' warning, and tells people they can break the commandment on keeping the Sabbath.

He is in big trouble, huh?

It's called gratitude. But it doesn't earn salvation, because Grace (un-merited favor) came first.
I didn't ask if you did the commandment to earn it. I asked if you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven. You said yes.

Is that your final answer?

About as well as I'm doing by not bragging about it. -Matthew 6:3
You say this in response to my question about how you are doing at "giving to everyone that asks of you". (Luke 6:30)

Ok, if you are good at giving to everyone that asks of you, give me everything you have, please. ;)


How do you know the Rich Young Ruler didn't interrupt Jesus? How do you know that Jesus knew the man couldn't even get past 6?
Wait, what?

The man asked Jesus a reasonable question. Which commandments did you need to follow to get to heaven. Jesus responded by listing six, including one that is not in the ten. So you are going to tell me Jesus was going to go through the whole Bible listing every command, but he got interrupted?

If he meant "all of them", why not just say, "all of them"?

And why didn't Matthew explain that there are many more that you need to follow? He could have cleared up the confusion.

Coveting is obviously missing from the list. That doesn't mean that Jesus suddenly allows coveting, but the Rich Young Ruler failed to remember it.
What does it even mean to covet? "Covet" is translated from an obscure Hebrew word, "hamad", which means to desire. Nobody even knows exactly what this commandment forbids.

But if I don't keep it, I won't go to heaven?
It's a one-question test: "Will you confess that you have personally failed to fulfill the entire Law (God's standard of Holiness), and instead place your trust in Jesus as your perfectly righteous substitute?"

...and then also keep all of the commandments (except for the one to keep Saturday holy.)

Why did you leave out the fine print?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Then there's nothing to accuse Abraham of. The Moral Judge of the Entire Universe literally pulled the plug before it got that far.
Rewind.

I have repeatedly asked you if Abraham was wrong to set out to kill Isaac. You have said it was sin.

Now you appear to be changing your mind and saying Abraham did not sin.

So please answer: In Genesis, when Abraham set out to kill Isaac, was he sinning? Was he wrong?

We still do not know your answer. If you would rather not answer, please say so.

No, you're contradicting yourself. "In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?"
Suppose somebody set up an IED to explode and kill somebody on the road. In the end, the bomb never goes off and nobody gets hurt. No harm, no foul? That's not how it works. If one sets out to kill a person, and takes the steps that puts another life at risk, he is still liable for what he did.

I clearly answered "sin" numerous times.
You say this in response to:

You could settle the whole question with a simple answer. Do you or do you not think it was wrong to set out to kill Isaac?
And I have acknowledged repeatedly that you said it was sin. But you also praise Abraham for doing it, even though you call it sin. And now you come up with the idea that it would have been sin only if he had actually plunged the knife.

Which all seems contradictory. You could clear it all up if you told us whether you thought Abraham was right or wrong to set out to kill Isaac.


You can't honestly accuse God (my morality) if God doesn't exist. :p
I can only evaluate your morality. I cannot evaluate God's morality because I have no good way of knowing what God commands.


Then you admitted, "In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?" How many parents have seriously considered killing their own children, but in the end don't do it at all? I guess you're not a parent. Many successful comedians have entire bits on that one subject alone.
Wanting to kill somebody is not illegal.

But it is illegal to build an alter, and then put firewood on that alter, and then tie up your son, and then put him on the firewood, and then raise a sharp knife with the intention of killing him and burning his body. If you try that, you will end up in the slammer and your son will be taken from you.
I'm confused that you're trying to force faux-accusations about three individuals you clearly don't believe existed. If your accusation is real, then you're just mad at God. That's all. No worries. If your accusation is not real, then I have nothing to worry about.
You say this in response to:

Which seems to say you think Abraham was right to set out to kill his son. But then in your next post you will go ballistic declaring that Abraham sinned when he set out to kill his son. I'm confused.​

Should I interpret this as another evasion of the question?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Kind-of egostistical to imply that everyone needs you.
Kind-of pathetic to imply that you need everyone.
OK, maybe I did not phrase that as well as I could have. I said, "We all need each other". I should have said, "We all need other people."
Besides that, you don't have any justification for assuming such an assertion.
Yes I do. We are social creatures that rely on each other every day. There are hundreds of people that are involved in your life, and in making the things you use.

If you don't think people are social creatures that need other people, I have offered you a means of falsifying my claim. Find somebody who lived a fulfilling life for many months who did not rely on one thing made by another person, such as a knife, a fishhook, or a pair of shoes. Even if you find one such person, and even if he describes that experience as a fulfilling experience he would like to repeat, I still stand by my assertion that, for must of us, we need other people.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.