Respectfully, you would need to be more specific as to what you're referring to. I see no scriptural references presented in the quotes indicating where I have assumed that scripture reflected reality. Are you saying that you don't believe Jesus existed, nor said any of the things that are purported in scripture?
Your beliefs about anything in scripture don't reflect anything about reality merely because you hold them: you need to substantiate them.
Jesus' existence in history is not the claim I'm remotely debating, so maybe read my post a bit more carefully before spouting more nonsense
I assure you that I have no intention of wasting your time creating strawmen. I'm just stating that the term God in scripture is an axiom, as in stating "There is a source of the energy that Created all things". Which is no different than the axiom "There is a source of the energy that created the wind". I need to establish this so that when I say God with a capitol G, it is understood as such in it's abstract form, as opposed to "a god", which implies more than one single God, and by extension implies mythical, and/or a subjective imagery of God that would elaborate upon or change the abstract form that God represents as an axiom.
You not intending it doesn't mean you didn't do it regardless.
And no, the source of the wind is not the same as God as a "source" because one can be investigated and demonstrated independently of scripture, whereas by your own admission, God only exists as a concept because of scripture
God as monotheistic is not any more compelling than god as part of a pantheon, the point remains that you haven't shown that this is somehow objective, when God has to be conceived of by a human mind and thus isn't an objective mind independent thing like rocks, trees, etc
No, I'm just making the point that I am part of what was created, or formed if you prefer, by the initial power that formed all things.
Except you're assuming that initial power with no evidence beyond appealing to a book that already assumes it. Do you not understand circular logic as a fallacy? Because that's what you're doing
No, I'm only saying that I find myself having a degree of intellect and emotions that I must presume others share. No need to read more into it than that.
Having intellect does not mean that the conclusions reached must all be true, that's pure relativism
I'm not sure what you mean by "you cannot have God's Concept in itself". I can see a qualifier in "you can only imagine that", but I don't see what that has to do with what your responding to in the quotes of my post. In the quotes I was merely pointing out that the semantics in Isaiah's words show he did not conceive of the concept that he is speaking of, but rather was speaking for God as God revealed.
He cannot speak about God revealing without a CONCEPT of God to begin with, you're putting the cart before the horse and trying to avoid the contingency of God as a concept from human minds
However, to your point that we can "only imagine that"; I'm not Isaiah but when God talks to me it's not processed in my brain any differently than if someone else had said something to me, only that the voice comes from inside. An epiphany however does feel like it takes place in the same part of the brain that forms imagery, only it's more palpable like it's working parts of the brain you never used before.
Then you genuinely may have an issue, because that can just as easily be understood as schizophrenic positive symptoms of auditory hallucinations. I have no reason to say you are lying, but I can assert with reasonable confidence you are likely mistaken, if not possibly bordering on schizophrenia
The point remains that you're admitting that all this stuff about God emerges in your brain, not from outside of it in a way you perceive, but that it's your brain working in different ways. How is that supporting anything besides that God is a product of your brain?
As I understand it, the creature made in God's image was corruptible because it does not realize the true value of the empathy or godliness bestowed upon it without experiencing the effects of lack of empathy and ungodliness in some real and substantial way. It's similar to not being able to see the light from a flashlight outdoors in the middle of the day. The flashlight's value only becomes apparent in the dark. Moreover, empathy is to be recognized as God's Spirit, because the creature becomes vain through un-thankfulness to God by thinking it's self wise.
Except pretty sure the Genesis story suggests it was merely not being obedient to God, nothing about empathy, just being stupid enough to believe a talking snake and eating a fruit
And where is your evidence that empathy must require your god at all except by self referential question begging of God as empathy? Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're doing is astonishing
It's difficult parsing your terms above. I would agree that humans do come to 'realize' good and evil at some point of cognitive awareness. But "an idea humans realized", is kind of like saying they realized they had an idea. "Idea" implies a vision or plan of action, which is not the same thing as an awareness of good or evil as an impetus. And when you say "they are human concepts" and qualify that by saying "they are not something in themselves", it again sounds like you're asserting that good and evil are devised/invented by mankind and not experienced, observed, or learned, or realized. However if you're implying that good and evil are an impetus 'in humans' when you say "they are not something in themselves", then this would be experienced, observed, learned, or realized.
They realize the idea in terms of conceiving of it, the idea doesn't have substance itself, like things we call rocks, trees, etc, that could exist apart from humans ever existing.
They can be experienced and not be something in themselves, you're confusing a descriptive and normative understanding of morality's ontology. One is describing something mind independent in that quality, the other is describing a quality that is assessed by facts that would be the case regardless of observations by others: someone feeling pain and suffering inflicted by another needlessly is evil because that suffering is not something that is good for the person.
Experiencing something does not mean the thing has a mind independent existence, you're making a leap in logic there, especially with an abstract concept like good and evil, versus concrete things
In Christianity it's really about being thankful for empathy, the ability to feel and understand the feelings of others. Good and evil is like the metaphor of Light and dark, where the Light is absent, there is darkness. It's the same metaphor for every moral/immoral dichotomy we reason upon, sight/blindness, selfless/selfish, mercy/merciless, knowledge/ignorance. Empathy is the impetus for goodness and the restrainer of evil in mankind.
Except there cannot necessarily be an absolute absence of light, that metaphor falls apart with consideration of the science regarding that.
Empathy can restrain evil, but acting like there is a substance for evil or that evil exists in itself rather than being an assessment we make of actions
Well let's look at it. If I used the self-evidentiary axiom of, "The power that brought everything into existence brought mankind into existence", it would only be arrogant and even unreasonable to say that the power is bad, not considering I could be wrong. However if I say that the power is good, then I am in essence thankful in some degree to be alive and there is no air of arrogance. And to think I might be wrong would only bring a darkness to my demeanor, not humility. Those are the stark differences seen in the implications/affects of a positive or a negative prejudice in our psycholinguistics.
There is logical inconsistency in appealing to this thing without arguments for why it is the case, but merely asserting it is an axiom based on a book that already assumes this thing to be the case, which is, again, circular logic
No, it isn't as black and white as you want to think, that's more signs of mental instability when you engage in split thinking. Humility is not the same as self deprecation, humility is admitting your flaws, not making up flaws where there may be none
Just to be clear, I said the good things in life not the bad things.
That changes nothing in regards to your seeming idea that the good must be defined in terms of pleasure or other feelings
Of course it's possible to put one's hopes in the wrong things and end up disappointed. And we can even have hope in good things of goodness such as for the lives of our children, and those good things are snatched away by some tragedy and then such hope becomes despair or even resentment. But empathy endures in the overarching hope that ultimately the good will overcome what is evil.
That's not empathy, that's optimism: empathy is the understanding of others as like yourself and that sense of their feelings and experiences being similar but distinct. You're expanding one concept far beyond what would be reasonable to try to reduce everything to that, instead of considering that it may be more complicated
There are circumstances that we find ourselves in that are not of our making, including being moved by the empathy that desires to leave a better world for our children. I don't need scripture to realize that there is a such thing as goodness which I didn't invent. That alone is evidence of God even while acknowledging its' limitations in grasping at what Eternal means from the perspective of a temporal existence.
I didn't say people invented goodness, goodness is a descriptive quality, it's something utilized for understanding our actions. We cannot speak of goodness as a mind independent property, because goodness requires a mind to understand it at all, that's the fundamental misunderstanding you make
No, that's more argument from ignorance that suggests something must be so because you personally cannot imagine otherwise
However I grant you that it would be dishonest and counter productive to base a conclusion that God exists on a book written by other people with no other supporting evidence, but that simply is not the case here. And the same could be said about a circular reasoning that claims God doesn't exist using a definition of God that is mythological in the first place. Moreover we should be wary of the cynicism that denies any possibility that everyone speaking the same thing in the book would/could be the inevitable and predictable outcome of simply being true.
I didn't claim God doesn't exist, so you're talking to the wrong person anyway. That's still a blatant argument from ignorance: people's consensus in itself is not evidence of the truth of their claims, that's an argument from popularity as well. I also never said it was impossible, I only said that appealing to the popularity or commonality is not good reasoning if your conclusion was true
No, no sane person would want to live in that house. But in defense of my sanity, I just didn't want to write a long post and at least it had a good foundation and a roof.
But you failed to consider that merely being convincing is not indicative that the position you hold is correct: rhetoric is not more important than logic
The semantics of a left/right dichotomy are interesting when rationalizing. When critical thinking crosses the line into cynicism humility also turns into pride.
Humility cannot possibly be pride except when it's a pretense of humility. Genuine humility is antithetical to pride and my admitting I could be wrong is not arrogant, you trying to essentially deflect any responsibility from your argument and make it about my claims, which is dishonest
The predicate of me saying that "God is not 'articulated' as a concept in scripture", as opposed to "God is not a concept in scripture", acknowledges that the authors of scripture are conveying what they believe to be interactions of God initiated by God, and 'articulated' is used so as not to assume anything.
They can believe all they want, that doesn't make it true, you're going based on mere credulity again
Assuming it's an eternal contempt for those who insist God is wicked against all reason, of course I would want to avoid it. But that doesn't mean I worship God out of fear of hell if I don't. Scripture says that perfect love casts out all fear. I would assume that just like everyone else, being beyond reproach would be true satisfaction.
Except perfection entails completion and thus no progress, which is a whole other issue (see my signature for thoughts on perfection)
No, you cannot necessarily be beyond reproach of all people, that's like expecting you can satisfy and please everyone
I've already substantiated the Holy Spirit apart from the bible when I told you I have my own conversations with God firsthand. In empathy towards me, please forgive my impertinence if I ask, have you perchance been abused?
I don't take your experiences as truth, only that you believe them. That isn't substantive, that's pure subjectivism without any consideration and humility that you could be wrong. Do you really not think that your "hearing" God could be your own deluding of yourself in an emotionally vulnerable state?
Not sure where you'd get the idea I've been abused, but I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance
If I may point out, it's a contradiction to on one hand value empathy, and on the other hand despise a submissive attitude that would seek to serve it. A doormat is useful and thank God for toilet paper.
It isn't a contradiction to value empathy, but acknowledge that it must be in moderation or it is misusing the value the virtue possesses. Empathy in deficit is arrogance and aggression, empathy in excess is being submissive and passive
