On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> 1:13-20.
... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus. For example, Christians
are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
slave to pieces for beating other slaves. So, was Jesus' God heavily
influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
had?
> A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
has created and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
and righteous?
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > 1:13-20.
> ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
and are something else now.
> For example, Christians
> are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> So, was Jesus' God heavily
> influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> had?
The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> has created
If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
what he does with them.
> and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> and righteous?
They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
creator, even to the point of denying his existence.
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > 1:13-20.
> > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> and are something else now.
> > For example, Christians
> > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > had?
> The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > has created
> If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> what he does with them.
> > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > and righteous?
> They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> creator, even to the point of denying his existence.
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > 1:13-20.
> > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> and are something else now.
It is news to me that those who have left slavery behind have left
Christianity behind.
> > For example, Christians
> > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
Is forgiveness mentioned in Luke 10:45-46?
But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and
drink, and to be drunken;
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for
him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder,
> > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > had?
> The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
So, God is like a master who cuts his slave to pieces?
> > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > has created
> If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> what he does with them.
> > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > and righteous?
> They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> creator, even to the point of denying his existence.
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > 1:13-20.
> > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > and are something else now.
> It is news to me that those who have left slavery behind have left
> Christianity behind.
> > > For example, Christians
> > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> Is forgiveness mentioned in Luke 10:45-46?
> But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
> and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and
> drink, and to be drunken;
> The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for
> him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder,
> > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > had?
> > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> So, God is like a master who cuts his slave to pieces?
> > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > has created
> > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > what he does with them.
> > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > and righteous?
> > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > 1:13-20.
> > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > and are something else now.
> It is news to me that those who have left slavery behind have left
> Christianity behind.
NT Christianity did not advocate slavery. It only told believers how
to live within a slavery based society.
> > > For example, Christians
> > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> Is forgiveness mentioned in Luke 10:45-46?
Luke 12:45-46
> But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
> and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and
> drink, and to be drunken;
> The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for
> him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder,
Sorry, I thought you were referring to a different parable. This one
is focused on doing the well of God, my master, and the results of
either being faithful or disobedient. This example was very
appropriate to a society that had slavery. But it is not advocating
slavery nor cruelity to slaves. It is dealing with the long range
consequences of my actions.
> > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > had?
> > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> So, God is like a master who cuts his slave to pieces?
No. Are you familiar with teaching methods that use real life
examples. Try looking at the point being made rather than getting
caught up in twisting the details.
> > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > has created
> > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > what he does with them.
> > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > and righteous?
> > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > 1:13-20.
> > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> and are something else now.
> > For example, Christians
> > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > had?
> The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > has created
> If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> what he does with them.
This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
of us.
> > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > and righteous?
> They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> creator, even to the point of denying his existence.
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > 1:13-20.
> > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > and are something else now.
> > > For example, Christians
> > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > had?
> > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > has created
> > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > what he does with them.
> This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> of us.
I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
something to say about it.
> > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > and righteous?
> > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.
Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
(and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
humans simply cease to exist. However, most Christians believe that
God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > and are something else now.
> > > > For example, Christians
> > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > had?
> > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > has created
> > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > what he does with them.
> > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > of us.
> I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> something to say about it.
> > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > and righteous?
> > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
concerning what I might to with it?
> I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> humans simply cease to exist.
I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
what.
> However, most Christians believe that
> God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 20, 7:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > had?
> > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > has created
> > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > what he does with them.
> > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > of us.
> > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > something to say about it.
> > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > and righteous?
> > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> concerning what I might to with it?
The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > humans simply cease to exist.
> I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> what.
Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
evil.
> > However, most Christians believe that
> > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > had?
> > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > has created
> > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > of us.
> > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > concerning what I might to with it?
> The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> staff rightfully does have expectations.
Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
similar to us and a stick.
> > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > what.
> Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> evil.
I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > of us.
> > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> similar to us and a stick.
By the mythology the difference is infinite, but we are still what we
are. Any other sentient, especially a perfect one, should respect it.
> > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > what.
> > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > evil.
> I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> Christina in real life who even uses that term.
Catholics use it and I thought most Protestants did as well - at least
the concept. It's the impossible trifecta: all knowing, all powerful,
all loving.
Regardless, no Christian uses "evil" to describe their all knowing,
all powerful God and every Christian who believes in hell should.
The Aquinian argument that the man or devil deserves punishment
carries no weight if God knew how everything would unfold before He
began creation. It is an evil act to intentionally create a being that
deserves infinite punishment.
> > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > of us.
> > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 6:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> > do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> > see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> > similar to us and a stick.
> By the mythology the difference is infinite, but we are still what we
> are. Any other sentient, especially a perfect one, should respect it.
> > > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > > what.
> > > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > > evil.
> > I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> > Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> Catholics use it and I thought most Protestants did as well - at least
> the concept. It's the impossible trifecta: all knowing, all powerful,
> all loving.
It still remains that I have not heard any use it, although I am a
Southern Baptist rather than a Catholic.
> Regardless, no Christian uses "evil" to describe their all knowing,
> all powerful God and every Christian who believes in hell should.
> The Aquinian argument that the man or devil deserves punishment
> carries no weight if God knew how everything would unfold before He
> began creation. It is an evil act to intentionally create a being that
> deserves infinite punishment.
Ultimately I came to reject eternal punishment simply because I could
not see that it would accomplish anything. My belief is that God
created the universe in order to produce a mature and glorified
church, although I am not sure just what that will amount to. And
once that is accomplished then the universe goes away. I just cannot
see any reason or purpose for an eternal punishment for those who were
not chosen. Again, I acknowledge that God could do so if he choose;
but why?
I do not call a cougar evil because it kills a child out on the trail
and eats it. It is what it is, and applying my morals to it is
foolish. I choose to do the same with God. He is not like me, and
for me to label him according to my concept of right and wrong seems
equally foolish.
> > > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > > of us.
> > > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> similar to us and a stick.
> > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > what.
> > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > evil.
> I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> Christina in real life who even uses that term.
You may be in the minority about omnibenevolence:
The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential
foundation in traditional Christianity, and can be seen in Scriptures
such as Psalms 18:30, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the
Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.
19:7, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This
understanding is evident in the following statement by the First
Vatican Council:
The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and
acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord
of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable,
incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every
perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and
unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality
and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself
and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides
Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[5]
The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-
contingent, independence and self-sustained mode of existence that
theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that
is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite
benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of
contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater
benevolence.[6]
Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord)
argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's
other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.
> > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > of us.
> > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 5:44 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 6:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > > > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > > > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > > > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > > Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> > > do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> > > see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> > > similar to us and a stick.
> > By the mythology the difference is infinite, but we are still what we
> > are. Any other sentient, especially a perfect one, should respect it.
> > > > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > > > what.
> > > > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > > > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > > > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > > > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > > > evil.
> > > I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> > > Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> > Catholics use it and I thought most Protestants did as well - at least
> > the concept. It's the impossible trifecta: all knowing, all powerful,
> > all loving.
> It still remains that I have not heard any use it, although I am a
> Southern Baptist rather than a Catholic.
> > Regardless, no Christian uses "evil" to describe their all knowing,
> > all powerful God and every Christian who believes in hell should.
> > The Aquinian argument that the man or devil deserves punishment
> > carries no weight if God knew how everything would unfold before He
> > began creation. It is an evil act to intentionally create a being that
> > deserves infinite punishment.
> Ultimately I came to reject eternal punishment simply because I could
> not see that it would accomplish anything. My belief is that God
> created the universe in order to produce a mature and glorified
> church, although I am not sure just what that will amount to. And
> once that is accomplished then the universe goes away. I just cannot
> see any reason or purpose for an eternal punishment for those who were
> not chosen. Again, I acknowledge that God could do so if he choose;
> but why?
I'm glad you feel that way.
> I do not call a cougar evil because it kills a child out on the trail
> and eats it. It is what it is, and applying my morals to it is
> foolish. I choose to do the same with God. He is not like me, and
> for me to label him according to my concept of right and wrong seems
> equally foolish.
If He sends people to hell, He's evil. Let's look at the top 3
definitions of evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
That one is moot; you can compare God to a cougar if you like.
I don't actually buy it myself, since the story is that we're made
in God's image.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
That one is a match.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous
That one is a match.
As Forrest Gump would say, evil is that evil does, sir.
> > > > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > > > of us.
> > > > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> > do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> > see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> > similar to us and a stick.
> > > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > > what.
> > > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > > evil.
> > I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> > Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> You may be in the minority about omnibenevolence:
> The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential
> foundation in traditional Christianity, and can be seen in Scriptures
> such as Psalms 18:30, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the
> Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.
> 19:7, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the
> testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This
> understanding is evident in the following statement by the First
> Vatican Council:
> The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and
> acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord
> of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable,
> incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every
> perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and
> unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality
> and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself
> and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides
> Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[5]
> The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-
> contingent, independence and self-sustained mode of existence that
> theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that
> is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite
> benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of
> contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater
> benevolence.[6]
Thank you traditional Christianity, for providing a simple proof that
God,as you conceive Him does not exist. I have no difficulty
conceiving a being of greater benevolence.
> Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord)
> argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's
> other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> > > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > > of us.
> > > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 7, 9:35 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 5:44 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 6:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > > > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > > > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > > > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > > > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > > > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > > > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > > > > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > > > > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > > > > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > > > Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> > > > do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> > > > see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> > > > similar to us and a stick.
> > > By the mythology the difference is infinite, but we are still what we
> > > are. Any other sentient, especially a perfect one, should respect it.
> > > > > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > > > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > > > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > > > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > > > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > > > > what.
> > > > > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > > > > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > > > > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > > > > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > > > > evil.
> > > > I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> > > > Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> > > Catholics use it and I thought most Protestants did as well - at least
> > > the concept. It's the impossible trifecta: all knowing, all powerful,
> > > all loving.
> > It still remains that I have not heard any use it, although I am a
> > Southern Baptist rather than a Catholic.
> > > Regardless, no Christian uses "evil" to describe their all knowing,
> > > all powerful God and every Christian who believes in hell should.
> > > The Aquinian argument that the man or devil deserves punishment
> > > carries no weight if God knew how everything would unfold before He
> > > began creation. It is an evil act to intentionally create a being that
> > > deserves infinite punishment.
> > Ultimately I came to reject eternal punishment simply because I could
> > not see that it would accomplish anything. My belief is that God
> > created the universe in order to produce a mature and glorified
> > church, although I am not sure just what that will amount to. And
> > once that is accomplished then the universe goes away. I just cannot
> > see any reason or purpose for an eternal punishment for those who were
> > not chosen. Again, I acknowledge that God could do so if he choose;
> > but why?
> I'm glad you feel that way.
> > I do not call a cougar evil because it kills a child out on the trail
> > and eats it. It is what it is, and applying my morals to it is
> > foolish. I choose to do the same with God. He is not like me, and
> > for me to label him according to my concept of right and wrong seems
> > equally foolish.
> If He sends people to hell, He's evil. Let's look at the top 3
> definitions of evil:
> 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
> That one is moot; you can compare God to a cougar if you like.
> I don't actually buy it myself, since the story is that we're made
> in God's image.
> 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
> That one is a match.
So cougars or virus or many bacteria are evil? As are earthquakes and
hurricanes?
> 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous
> That one is a match.
> As Forrest Gump would say, evil is that evil does, sir.
> > > > > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > > > > of us.
> > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
> > > > > > > > making though is that the creation has no say in what the creator
> > > > > > > > does, not that others who are peers with the creator might not have
> > > > > > > > something to say about it.
> > > > > > > > > > > and that the roosters should consider him good, perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > and righteous?
> > > > > > > > > > They are welcome to think whatever they wish, just like we are with
> > > > > > > > > > our creator. We are not forced to think any specific thing about our
> > > > > > > > > > creator, even to the point of denying his existence.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 7, 9:35 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Ultimately I came to reject eternal punishment simply because I could
> not see that it would accomplish anything. My belief is that God
> created the universe in order to produce a mature and glorified
> church, although I am not sure just what that will amount to. And
> once that is accomplished then the universe goes away. I just cannot
> see any reason or purpose for an eternal punishment for those who were
> not chosen. Again, I acknowledge that God could do so if he choose;
> but why?
> I do not call a cougar evil because it kills a child out on the trail
> and eats it. It is what it is, and applying my morals to it is
> foolish. I choose to do the same with God. He is not like me, and
> for me to label him according to my concept of right and wrong seems
> equally foolish.
Then, to label God as good is foolish. Yet, you've never pointed out
this to anyone who calledl God good. What gives?
> On Nov 7, 10:44 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 9:35 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 5:44 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 6:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > > > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > > > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > > > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > > > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > > > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > > > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > > > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > > > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > > > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > > > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > > > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > > > > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > > > > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > > > > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > > > > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > > > > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > > > > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > > > > > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > > > > > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > > > > > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > > > > Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> > > > > do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> > > > > see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> > > > > similar to us and a stick.
> > > > By the mythology the difference is infinite, but we are still what we
> > > > are. Any other sentient, especially a perfect one, should respect it.
> > > > > > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > > > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > > > > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > > > > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > > > > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > > > > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > > > > > what.
> > > > > > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > > > > > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > > > > > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > > > > > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > > > > > evil.
> > > > > I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> > > > > Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> > > > Catholics use it and I thought most Protestants did as well - at least
> > > > the concept. It's the impossible trifecta: all knowing, all powerful,
> > > > all loving.
> > > It still remains that I have not heard any use it, although I am a
> > > Southern Baptist rather than a Catholic.
> > > > Regardless, no Christian uses "evil" to describe their all knowing,
> > > > all powerful God and every Christian who believes in hell should.
> > > > The Aquinian argument that the man or devil deserves punishment
> > > > carries no weight if God knew how everything would unfold before He
> > > > began creation. It is an evil act to intentionally create a being that
> > > > deserves infinite punishment.
> > > Ultimately I came to reject eternal punishment simply because I could
> > > not see that it would accomplish anything. My belief is that God
> > > created the universe in order to produce a mature and glorified
> > > church, although I am not sure just what that will amount to. And
> > > once that is accomplished then the universe goes away. I just cannot
> > > see any reason or purpose for an eternal punishment for those who were
> > > not chosen. Again, I acknowledge that God could do so if he choose;
> > > but why?
> > I'm glad you feel that way.
> > > I do not call a cougar evil because it kills a child out on the trail
> > > and eats it. It is what it is, and applying my morals to it is
> > > foolish. I choose to do the same with God. He is not like me, and
> > > for me to label him according to my concept of right and wrong seems
> > > equally foolish.
> > If He sends people to hell, He's evil. Let's look at the top 3
> > definitions of evil:
> > 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
> > That one is moot; you can compare God to a cougar if you like.
> > I don't actually buy it myself, since the story is that we're made
> > in God's image.
> > 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
> > That one is a match.
> So cougars or virus or many bacteria are evil? As are earthquakes and
> hurricanes?
When they cause human tragedy, I would call them "evils" [the noun]
rather than "evil" [the adjective]. Only the cougar intentionally
harms us, and as you point out it is in its nature; its goal is not to
cause us pain.
I call the God of Abraham (omniscient, Hell-sending version) evil [the
adjective] because He's all about intentionality. In that mythology,
He intentionally set up a game in which He intentionally hurts most of
us infinitely.
> > 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous
> > That one is a match.
> > As Forrest Gump would say, evil is that evil does, sir.
> > > > > > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > > > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > > > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > > > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > > > > > of us.
> > > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. The point I was
On Nov 8, 1:52 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:39 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > For if He was not morally perfect, that
> > is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite
> > benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of
> > contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater
> > benevolence.[6]
> Thank you traditional Christianity, for providing a simple proof that
> God,as you conceive Him does not exist. I have no difficulty
> conceiving a being of greater benevolence.
What would a being of greater benevolence do with:
1) Ted Bundy
2) Mahatma Gandhi
3) The passengers on the sinking (but not yet sunk) Titanic
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 1:52 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 10:39 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > For if He was not morally perfect, that
> > > is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite
> > > benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of
> > > contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater
> > > benevolence.[6]
> > Thank you traditional Christianity, for providing a simple proof that
> > God,as you conceive Him does not exist. I have no difficulty
> > conceiving a being of greater benevolence.
> What would a being of greater benevolence do with:
> 1) Ted Bundy
> 2) Mahatma Gandhi
> 3) The passengers on the sinking (but not yet sunk) Titanic
Give them thrilling adventures and then send 'em to heaven.
> On Nov 8, 2:57 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 1:52 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 10:39 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > For if He was not morally perfect, that
> > > > is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite
> > > > benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of
> > > > contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater
> > > > benevolence.[6]
> > > Thank you traditional Christianity, for providing a simple proof that
> > > God,as you conceive Him does not exist. I have no difficulty
> > > conceiving a being of greater benevolence.
> > What would a being of greater benevolence do with:
> > 1) Ted Bundy
> > 2) Mahatma Gandhi
> > 3) The passengers on the sinking (but not yet sunk) Titanic
> Give them thrilling adventures and then send 'em to heaven.
Would the Titanic passengers' adventures be something other than
drowning?
> On Nov 7, 10:44 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 9:35 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 5:44 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 6:22 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:53 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I swat mosquitoes and am willing to shoot
> > > > > > > > (and eat) porcupines that greatly inconvenience me. So I am receptive
> > > > > > > > to your argument that there is a hierarchy where some creatures
> > > > > > > > deserve more consideration than others, and we are allowed to behave
> > > > > > > > according to our nature and our interests - as other animals also do.
> > > > > > > > However, if the creation has no say it is only because it is
> > > > > > > > powerless, not because a sentient creature is not deserving of any
> > > > > > > > consideration from its creator. I reject the notion that creation
> > > > > > > > automatically bestows unlimited moral rights over the created. I
> > > > > > > > suggest the alternative principle that the creator has a moral duty to
> > > > > > > > treat its sentient creations with respect, though not necessarily to
> > > > > > > > treat them lovingly and grant them boons.
> > > > > > > But is the responsibility that a creator might have for his creation,
> > > > > > > incompatible with the creations having no say in the creators
> > > > > > > actions? As a very limited example, if I produce a staff (I can't
> > > > > > > create), I indeed have some responsibility for what I do with and how
> > > > > > > I use the staff. But what expectation does the staff rightly have
> > > > > > > concerning what I might to with it?
> > > > > > The dividing line is sentience. Discussion of staffs sidesteps the
> > > > > > issue -- unless we are dicsussing a sentient staff, in which case the
> > > > > > staff rightfully does have expectations.
> > > > > Humans are, it appears, the brightest things on this planet. But how
> > > > > do we stack up against one who is capable of producing the universe we
> > > > > see around us? I suspect the difference between he and us would be
> > > > > similar to us and a stick.
> > > > By the mythology the difference is infinite, but we are still what we
> > > > are. Any other sentient, especially a perfect one, should respect it.
> > > > > > > > I don't have a big beef with you, because you believe that sinful
> > > > > > > > humans simply cease to exist.
> > > > > > > I believe that to be the case. However, I also believe that God has
> > > > > > > the right to punish any of us for eternity if he so chose. He made us
> > > > > > > and is free to do with us what he will. I might not like what he
> > > > > > > chooses to do and might take take serious exception to it. But so
> > > > > > > what.
> > > > > > Here you are defending His right to be evil towards us. I don't agree
> > > > > > with you, but still, that is all you are doing. For those who think
> > > > > > God is like that - and there are perhaps billions of them - let them
> > > > > > call a spade and spade. Such a God is not "omnibenevolent." He is
> > > > > > evil.
> > > > > I do not apply the term omnibenevolent to God, nor do I know any
> > > > > Christina in real life who even uses that term.
> > > > Catholics use it and I thought most Protestants did as well - at least
> > > > the concept. It's the impossible trifecta: all knowing, all powerful,
> > > > all loving.
> > > It still remains that I have not heard any use it, although I am a
> > > Southern Baptist rather than a Catholic.
> > > > Regardless, no Christian uses "evil" to describe their all knowing,
> > > > all powerful God and every Christian who believes in hell should.
> > > > The Aquinian argument that the man or devil deserves punishment
> > > > carries no weight if God knew how everything would unfold before He
> > > > began creation. It is an evil act to intentionally create a being that
> > > > deserves infinite punishment.
> > > Ultimately I came to reject eternal punishment simply because I could
> > > not see that it would accomplish anything. My belief is that God
> > > created the universe in order to produce a mature and glorified
> > > church, although I am not sure just what that will amount to. And
> > > once that is accomplished then the universe goes away. I just cannot
> > > see any reason or purpose for an eternal punishment for those who were
> > > not chosen. Again, I acknowledge that God could do so if he choose;
> > > but why?
> > I'm glad you feel that way.
> > > I do not call a cougar evil because it kills a child out on the trail
> > > and eats it. It is what it is, and applying my morals to it is
> > > foolish. I choose to do the same with God. He is not like me, and
> > > for me to label him according to my concept of right and wrong seems
> > > equally foolish.
> > If He sends people to hell, He's evil. Let's look at the top 3
> > definitions of evil:
> > 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
> > That one is moot; you can compare God to a cougar if you like.
> > I don't actually buy it myself, since the story is that we're made
> > in God's image.
> > 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
> > That one is a match.
> So cougars or virus or many bacteria are evil? As are earthquakes and
> hurricanes?
LL: No, none of those are evil in themselves. Whatever greater power
created them to be destructive and continues to allow them to do their
destruction is the evil one.
But if there is no god, they are still not evil. They are simply doing
what they are determined to do. I doubt that cougars and bacteria
(your examples) are doing anything consciously--and certainly not
earthquakes and hurricanes.
> > 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous
> > That one is a match.
> > As Forrest Gump would say, evil is that evil does, sir.
> > > > > > > > However, most Christians believe that
> > > > > > > > God created the universe with the knowledge and intent that He would
> > > > > > > > visit eternal and infinite pain on many of His creations (humans and/
> > > > > > > > or angels). A creator so defined is, by definition, an evil god.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 9:37 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:58 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:50 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1:13-20.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ... but Christianity has moved on since Jesus.
> > > > > > > > > > > Has it? There are indeed some groups who have left his teaching
> > > > > > > > > > > behind. But IMO, in so doing they have also left Christianity behind
> > > > > > > > > > > and are something else now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > For example, Christians
> > > > > > > > > > > > are now abolitionists whereas Jesus said nothing against slavery as an
> > > > > > > > > > > > institution and once even said that God is like a master who cuts his
> > > > > > > > > > > > slave to pieces for beating other slaves.
> > > > > > > > > > > You seemed to have missed the point of what Jesus was saying there.
> > > > > > > > > > > The issue is on the importance of forgiving others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, was Jesus' God heavily
> > > > > > > > > > > > influenced by human interpretations and is the best picture of God the
> > > > > > > > > > > > picture that current Christians have and not the picture that Jesus
> > > > > > > > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > The best picture of God is the one that Jesus presented.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If your neighbor were able to create roosters, would you say that he
> > > > > > > > > > > > should have complete freedom to stage cockfights with the roosters he
> > > > > > > > > > > > has created
> > > > > > > > > > > If he indeed created them, then his creation should have no say in
> > > > > > > > > > > what he does with them.
> > > > > > > > > > This position is consistent but still jarring. There should be, and
> > > > > > > > > > hopefully will be when needed, laws against humans creating conscious
> > > > > > > > > > beings for the purpose of torturing them. To do so would be evil. If
> > > > > > > > > > one human does that and we permit it, it lessens the humanity of all
> > > > > > > > > > of us.
> > > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying and do not disagree.
|
