-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
- Status
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Depends on how you are using the term, and who you are asking. If you ask a Hindu, he might tell you there are innumerable gods in the Hindu pantheon. If you ask me, there is One God, even the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. I would also tell you that gods can refer to a ruler of men or men in general as is used in the OT rendering of elohim. It can also refer to idols. The word has more than one connotation.
If you are offended by me talking about Jesus Christ, then you are in the wrong place. This is a Christian forum. Do you tell your wife she is preaching at you when she talks about Jesus?
Editing your posts? How so?
I do not have to. They are not my words to establish, but God's and He Himself has testified to them that they are the truth.
It is not my position that gods exist, so I do not have to establish it is possible. I think it goes without saying that idols exist, if that is what you mean by gods.
Sin is sin. Even evil thoughts are sins in the eyes of an all knowing, all seeing Holy God.
In the beginning it was not so, for death came as a result from sin.
Please refer me to this post so I may read it.
Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to mans depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is not surprised at the human evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen; He does not interfere to stop it, but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankinds moral responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.
Read more: The Problem of Evil | Reasonable Faith
Do you ask her these pointed questions you ask me? What is her response?
I do.
Jesus Christ's death burial and resurrection are all open to being falsified via historical investigation, the same way any other assertion about a particular event history can be falsified.
I do not know that it is, nor does that have any bearing on my statement. Is the love your wife have for you scientifically falsifiable, is your relationship with her scientifically falsifiable?
It is not okay by God, so why do you keep asking me that?
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Who said there were no repercussion for the rape of that child? I did not say that anywhere. So why are you saying I did?
Upvote
0
Given the vast amount of evil still in the world, God's efforts would appear to be ineffective.
Upvote
0
World's most often ask question by non believers. It is an awesome awesome question.
The answer to this question is very simple and this is my humble opinion: The Lord reveals this answer on a personal basis when the time has come.
Only the pure of heart can see The Lord and I am not pure.
The answer to this question is very simple and this is my humble opinion: The Lord reveals this answer on a personal basis when the time has come.
Only the pure of heart can see The Lord and I am not pure.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
I asked you what you thought. Whatever.
I ask you a question, and you respond by preaching at me. That is insulting. Do you think of me as stupid?
Deleting portions and acting like they were not there. Sometimes I don't recognize the post you are responding to.
Yes, you do. If you do not, it will be dismissed as myth. It is off of the table as evidence.
No, circular logic does not work. What is it with you and your use of logical fallacies? The bible says that the bible is true? Lol.
Then gods, including yours, are dismissed as myths.
Thought crimes. Got it.
Bible stories. Myth, if you cannot show otherwise. And you declined to do so.
Are not lies between schoolchildren "sin"?
Or, the world works as we would expect it to if gods were nothing more than characters in books.
Why would I do that to my wife when I have you?
That is not evidenced in your responses.
So, how would one falsify the resurrection?
So it can be dismissed as evidence.
Red herring. We are talking about your unfalsifiable claims.
How is it not okay by God?
So you can slaughter millions of men, women, and children, but you better believe? Amirite?
I am gathering it from your continued evasion of the question. Any chance you will directly answer? If child rapists go to heaven, and this "god" lets them in to heaven, what is wrong with doing it?
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
I asked you what you thought. Whatever.
I ask you a question, and you respond by preaching at me. That is insulting. Do you think of me as stupid?
Deleting portions and acting like they were not there. Sometimes I don't recognize the post you are responding to.
Yes, you do. If you do not, it will be dismissed as myth. It is off of the table as evidence.
No, circular logic does not work. What is it with you and your use of logical fallacies? The bible says that the bible is true? Lol.
Then gods, including yours, are dismissed as myths.
Thought crimes. Got it.
Bible stories. Myth, if you cannot show otherwise. And you declined to do so.
Are not lies between schoolchildren "sin"?
Or, the world works as we would expect it to if gods were nothing more than characters in books.
Why would I do that to my wife when I have you?
That is not evidenced in your responses.
So, how would one falsify the resurrection?
So it can be dismissed as evidence.
Red herring. We are talking about your unfalsifiable claims.
How is it not okay by God?
So you can slaughter millions of men, women, and children, but you better believe? Amirite?
I am gathering it from your continued evasion of the question. Any chance you will directly answer? If child rapists go to heaven, and this "god" lets them in to heaven, what is wrong with doing it?
What has Christ done to you, that you should be so offended at Him?
Upvote
0
S
seeking Christ
Guest
The OP, in the OP, expresses why it is that we have the very difficult passages in the Bible that depict genocide and other harsh judgments. Bravo! (I have not read the rest of the thread, but the script seems predictable enough)
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
I asked you what you thought. Whatever.
I ask you a question, and you respond by preaching at me. That is insulting. Do you think of me as stupid?
Deleting portions and acting like they were not there. Sometimes I don't recognize the post you are responding to.
Yes, you do. If you do not, it will be dismissed as myth. It is off of the table as evidence.
No, circular logic does not work. What is it with you and your use of logical fallacies? The bible says that the bible is true? Lol.
Then gods, including yours, are dismissed as myths.
Thought crimes. Got it.
Bible stories. Myth, if you cannot show otherwise. And you declined to do so.
Are not lies between schoolchildren "sin"?
Or, the world works as we would expect it to if gods were nothing more than characters in books.
Why would I do that to my wife when I have you?
That is not evidenced in your responses.
So, how would one falsify the resurrection?
So it can be dismissed as evidence.
Red herring. We are talking about your unfalsifiable claims.
How is it not okay by God?
So you can slaughter millions of men, women, and children, but you better believe? Amirite?
I am gathering it from your continued evasion of the question. Any chance you will directly answer? If child rapists go to heaven, and this "god" lets them in to heaven, what is wrong with doing it?
You can call me stupid, Hawisher.
I actually thought there was a chance that Elio was serious about this, and would directly answer the question this time.
Upvote
0
BazAussiekid1173
Newbie
Oh I don't know, a world where people don't kill, hurt and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] up each other for stupid reasons?
Upvote
0
Are you insinuating that you can't think of one single way in which your existence (or anyone else's) could be better than it is now?
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
When I think of "better", Roger Water's The Gunner's Dream comes to mind:
A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more no-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door.
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
You say a world where people do not hurt each other for stupid reasons would be "better" than the one in which we are living now. Well, now it must be understood that what we are talking about now is morality. You in a sense, are saying, that people should not hurt each other for stupid reasons. Well now, I will have to ask you, is this your opinion, or are you appealing to an objective moral reality which you assume everyone should intuitively know? Is it your opinion, which could be one of many, that hurting people is wrong, or are you saying hurting others is wrong despite of what other people's opinions may be?
If you are a moral relativist, then you cannot say that hurting others is wrong, because you would then be making an appeal to an objective standard of morality by which you judge the action of another. But if then, you are appealing to an objective standard of morality by which you judge another for not meeting that standard, then you are no longer allowing them their freedom to act according to their opinion. You thus are no longer a relativist, but a moral realist or objectivist. Incidentally, moral realism/objectivism is the most widely held view of morality among philosophers in academia.
But then, if you say: "Well yes, it is wrong to hurt others and people should not hurt others even if they think it is right to hurt others..." Then there is another question that must be asked, and that is: "Why?" Why should we not hurt others? Notice the key word here: "should". Now, if you were to ask me that, I would say that each person is of infinite intrinsic worth and value because each person is made in the Image of God, His creator. Being such an image bearer of God, each person is entitled to be treated with respect, dignity, honor, and love. Each person is worth that at the very least or minimum. I would say that we are not merely accidental by-products of evolution or a random collocation of atoms with no intrinsic worth, dignity, or value, but rather, I would say that each person, regardless of race, creed, gender, is infinitely worthy of respect, honor, and dignity because they are created by God who makes men and women of intrinsic worth.
If I were to ask you why people should not hurt others, what could you say? Take God out of the picture, and what have you got left as far as a basis for the worth of a man or woman? You have no basis. Under a godless worldview, there is no ontic referrent or basis for which a person is intrinsically worth any more than an ant, or a rat, or a baboon. Under a godless view of reality, man is simply an ape like creature that has evolved from some primordial soup who is living on a speck of dust in an uncaring universe and who is beset by these "delusions" of right and wrong. There is no good reason for an atheist to think that in a godless universe, things like hurting others is objectively wrong. Over the course of evolution, certain acts like rape, or child abuse may have come to be seen as disadvantageous for survival and reproduction, and so over the course of time became socially taboo. But under a godless view of reality, rape and child abuse are not objectively wrong. On this view, a man who rapes a child may indeed be acting unfashionably or counter-culturally but no one could say that his acts were objectively wrong. He was just going against the societal norms, not unlike Lady Gaga does with her counter-cultural antics and fashion. She may be doing things that are taboo and socially unacceptable, but to say she is objectively wrong or that the rapist is objectively wrong simply is not possible in a godless world. At most, you could say the child rapist is not acting in a manner conducive to the well-being of others. This is not to say that his conduct is objectively wrong however. It is also interesting to note, that since evolution is concerned with the survival and reproduction of a species and not morality or truth values, there may very well come a point in time where it is socially acceptable to rape. Under a godless worldview where a species main concern is for survival and reproduction, it is not unlikely that there could come a time when the population of women is drastically reduced due to disease, rival tribal or cultural killings, etc. etc. In this scenario, the population of men would far outnumber the population of women and in order for the human race to survive, forceful copulation may be necessary. According to evolutionary theorists, under this not unlikely scenario, forceful copulation would be the very thing conducive to human flourishing and therefore "good". Sharks do it all the time, so do other animals, for in the animal kingdom, there is no such thing as "rape", but merely forceful copulation. Now you may object and say: "Woah, we are different! Homo Sapiens are different!" But I would say: "How?" and "Why?" Why are we intrinsically any different than our primate cousins? Under a godless view, we are not at all intrinsically any different. To maintain that we are is to adhere to specieism. To say we are different because we are more evolved is incorrect as well, because it is well-known that under the theory of evolution, there is no such thing as being more evolved or less evolved. This concept is non-existent.
In conclusion Baz, on atheism, there simply is no good basis on which you can say that people should not hurt other people. When you maintain this position, you are borrowing from a theistic worldview and you simply, as an atheist, cannot have the benefits of God's existence in a godless universe.
You, like Baz, are saying that some things in this world are objectively wrong or evil. You like Baz, must borrow from a theistic worldview regarding the infinite intrinsic worth of a human being to make such a statement. You cannot have humans who are intrinsically worthy of respect, honor, and dignity, without God. Read Nietzsche, read Dostoyevksy.
Of course everone wants these things, but why do we consider these "hypothetical worlds" where there is no evil "better" than the one we are living in? Because humans are treated with dignity, respect and honor? Well I agree that humans should be treated with dignity, respect, and honor, but unlike you, I have a basis for making that assertion, you do not. Under a godless view of reality, man is merely one of many accidental by-products of a blind, uncaring, ultimately meaningless evolutionary process. He is an ape-like creature reproducing and evolving on a cosmic speck of dust in an uncaring universe and is beset by delusions of morality ingrained in him over a millenia of evolution. His sole existence is survival and reproduction.
Upvote
0
What he thinks is wrong is pretty much irrelevant to the point.
Your allegedly existing God´s allegedly objective morality says it is objectively wrong. So in your God´s eyes a world without it would be a better place. We can simply compare the world as it is to your God´s own standards and conclude that from within the Christian pov the world could be better.
What we are not trying to do: demonstrate an inconsistency between different views. We are demonstrating a problem that´s inherent to your theology.
Hence, all the rest of your post with the tired old attacks on relative morality is just an attempt to distract from what´s actually being shown.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
