When I visited Asia last year, our local guide in Siem Reap told us about how he killed some chlidren to stay alive. Is he a bad person? I'm not sure; I can't make judgements when I myself have never been in a similar circumstance.
It's logical to say "I would never do such a thing," but how sure are we?
Chumly wrote: . . . The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that he has not foreseen.
When God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means he could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it. . .
Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.
The only conclusion one can reach from your premise is that all the evil and misery that humans have experienced at one time existed only in the mind of God and he deliberately set it in motion when he created sentient beings.
This might provide a convenient reason for you to eschew the idea of a loving God to whom you bear a responsibility.
Bada bing bada boom. You may now be like God, knowing the difference between good and bad.
But you are on your own.
Oh, I'm reminded of a story my mom told me once...
A preacher had been preaching about laying your lives down completely for Jesus. Even to the point of becoming martyrs for His sake. The congregation shouted all the hallelujah's and amens a person could take! There had been several sermons about this over a period of time. One Sunday the church was full as usual, everything was going along as normal, when suddenly some men with ski masks and guns busted in the doors yelling, "Stand up and be counted if you are ready to die for Jesus!" They stood up alright, and ran right out the doors. When it was all said and done there were about four people left in that church. The guys with the guns took off their ski masks and said, "Ok Pastor, are you ready to have church now?" As it turns out the masked gunmen were the associate pastor and a couple of ushers.
I don't know if I told that just right. I think that actually happened somewhere if I remember correctly. But the point is, you are right CI. We don't know. We just don't. It is easy to say, "Why I NEVER!" But there's really no way to tell if you would or wouldn't unless you were put in the situation, regardless of what it was.
Quote:When I visited Asia last year, our local guide in Siem Reap told us about how he killed some chlidren to stay alive. Is he a bad person? I'm not sure; I can't make judgements when I myself have never been in a similar circumstance.
It's logical to say "I would never do such a thing," but how sure are we?
Well yes, I agree with you on that.
Is he a bad person? If you mean in terms of personality, not necessarily, but even though a certain action may be understandable, it does not make it right. When push comes to shove, if you are right there witnessing the incident progressing, you will have to choose to do something.
Yes, I'm not sure what I would do in such a situation, but it really shouldn't matter to the ethical merit of the action. Anything less than that just seems to me like I'm rationalizing my actions. A bit conservative/hardline maybe, but that's what I think
.
Quote:Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.
And who speaks for God or of God's ability?
Chumly wrote: . . . The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that he has not foreseen.
When God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means he could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it. . .
neologist wrote:Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.
I have not delineated god's purpose as per my above quoted text. I ask, where is the logic in your response as per my above quoted text? Outside of my above quoted text but inclusive in my same post the only delineated purpose of God I referred to was he is obligated to do the most good. Are you arguing against this?
neologist wrote:The only conclusion one can reach from your premise is that all the evil and misery that humans have experienced at one time existed only in the mind of God and he deliberately set it in motion when he created sentient beings.
Well, I said quite a bit more than just the two paragraphs you quoted, and it went directly to both god's and human's lack of free will. As of yet you have not argued against my lack of free will premise, you've only said there is no other conclusion one can draw but your "evil and misery" one. You have not said why there is no other conclusion to be drawn, nor shown a flaw in my argument as per lack of free will.
echi wrote:What do you mean your existence is determined by your true Self? Hit me with it, man.
That was the excuse JLNobody used when his mom tried to get him to clean his room
I think "hit me with it man" has more impact if JLN's father told him to clean his room. LOL
cicerone imposter wrote:When I visited Asia last year, our local guide in Siem Reap told us about how he killed some chlidren to stay alive. Is he a bad person? I'm not sure; I can't make judgements when I myself have never been in a similar circumstance.
It's logical to say "I would never do such a thing," but how sure are we?
Unless we're talking self defense (i.e. the 'children' were going to kill him first) then it's hard to see how you can avoid saying this was wrong.
Oh but I forgot. You are the one who
never[/u] imposes your personal moral code on ANYONE else, and you
never[/u] judge anyone else's actions to be wrong.
Unless they disagree with you politically. We could pull up many posts to show this.
Or unless they disagree with you on religion. Then you are eloquent in telling folks how wrong they are.
But killing kids? Well you just can't seem to make yourself say that it's wrong.
What's wrong with this picture, folks?
People like real life will never understand what the following article says about this administration and Americans to the world. I disagree whole-heartedly with this administrations policies and actions - 100 percent. They do not represent me as an American citizen. They are criminals that belongs in prison.
Bush: "We don't torture"?-but don't put it in writing
By Bill Van Auken
9 November 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
"We do not torture," George W. Bush declared during a brief press conference in Panama Monday. As a presidential statement denying the self-evident, it will go down in history alongside Richard Nixon's 1973 assertion, "I am not a crook."
Bush's statement came in response to a reporter's question about the recent revelations concerning the network of concentration camps that his administration, the CIA and the Pentagon have created from Afghanistan, to Iraq, Cuba, eastern Europe and Thailand.
Well over 10,000 people are imprisoned in these camps without charges or any rights to a hearing, representation or a trial. In most cases, they have simply disappeared without any notification of their families as to what has become of them.
According to the Washington Post, prisoners in the CIA's facilities are kept in "dark, sometimes underground cells, they have no rights, and no one outside the CIA is allowed to talk with or even see them." The paper also points out that "interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved ?'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques'.... They include tactics such as ?'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning."
"Will you let the Red Cross have access to them?" the reporter in Panama asked about the detainees. "And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture."
Cheney took the extraordinary step last month of going to Capitol Hill with CIA Director Porter Goss in an attempt to pressure senators into exempting the CIA from a proposed amendment that would ban "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" of prisoners in US custody. Unless the exemption is inserted, the White House has threatened to veto the measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 9.
Bush dodged the reporter's questions, but the answers are clear. No, he will not grant the Red Cross access to the CIA's gulag and the thousands of "disappeared" being held by America's secret police. And yes, he agrees with Cheney; any attempt to turn his verbal disavowal of torture into written law must be quashed.
It was over the word "torture" that Bush took umbrage. "We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice," the US president said. "We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture."
On the same day that Bush made his remark in Panama, military officials in Baghdad announced that five American soldiers of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Iraq had been charged with physically abusing three detainees in September.
"The detainees got bruises and contusions, caused by striking with a closed and open hand, and hitting with an object described as a broomstick," a military spokesman said.
Citing a Pentagon source, the Washington Post reported: "So far, the Army has investigated more than 400 allegations of detainee mistreatment, and more than 230 soldiers and officers have faced courts-martial, non-judicial punishments and administrative punishments."
These cases are just the tip of the iceberg, representing egregious incidents that the Pentagon was unable to conceal. These numbers indicate that the photographs from Abu Ghraib that shocked the entire world were not an aberration, but merely an accurate representation of systemic torture and abuse that are the inevitable byproduct of an illegal war and colonial occupation.
I gladly defend my position to the likes of real life who hasn't a clue.
Chumly wrote: . . . Outside of my above quoted text but inclusive in my same post the only delineated purpose of God I referred to was he is obligated to do the most good. Are you arguing against this? . . .
He also is the one who gets to define what is good and set the timetable for its accomplishment.
You are fond of the word hubris.
It applies also to those who would apply their standards to those of God.
neologist wrote:Chumly wrote: . . . The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that he has not foreseen.
When God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means he could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it. . .
Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.
What is
your definition, neo?
Quote:The only conclusion one can reach from your premise is that all the evil and misery that humans have experienced at one time existed only in the mind of God and he deliberately set it in motion when he created sentient beings.
There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.
Quote:This might provide a convenient reason for you to eschew the idea of a loving God to whom you bear a responsibility.
echi wrote:. . . What is your definition, neo?
. . . There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.
My definition is his name, Yahweh or Jehovah, which means 'he who causes to become'.
Once, when speaking to Moses he referred to himself as "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." (Exodus 3:14), indicating that He will become whatever is necessary to accomplish his purpose.
The bible could be all hogwash, of course; but if it is true, then we cannot by the stroke of a pen, declare God incapable of anything.
It sounds like your god, Neo, is unbothered/uneffected by internal contradiction or logicial paradox?
Maybe real life IS on the right track
Doktor S wrote:It sounds like your god, Neo, is unbothered/uneffected by internal contradiction or logicial paradox?
Maybe real life IS on the right track
Internal contradiction?
Logical paradox?
Ignoring the fact that no logical paradox has been demonstrated, what part of 'he'll do whatever it takes' do we not understand?
Or I should say: If we don't understand, whose reasoning is flawed?
Internal contradiction : a god that is simultaniously willfully ignorant and omniscient.
The extent of elasticity you are willing to lend to your exegesis to circumvent this is to me perplexing.
Like Nature, a God, must also transcend logical contradiction. It is the Rationalist's error to think that Nature has a logical anatomy identical to that of his mind.
Doktor S wrote:Internal contradiction : a god that is simultaniously willfully ignorant and omniscient.
The extent of elasticity you are willing to lend to your exegesis to circumvent this is to me perplexing.
The word omniscient does not appear in the bible. Strictly defined, it imposes a limitation on God's will. Therefore, it cannot be correctly applied to God.
The ability to know is not the same as being forced to know.
I've used this example before, but God is under no more compulsion to know your eventuality than you or I are required to read the last page of the whodunit.
echi wrote:neologist wrote:echi wrote:. . . What is your definition, neo?
. . . There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.
My definition is his name, Yahweh or Jehovah, which means 'he who causes to become'.
Is that it?
We can never know the totality of God's attributes. Is that what you mean?
Ok, so 'omniscient' is not a property of your god?
