Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vice President’s Commentary On Bob Enyart’s Interview Of MSA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    Why does faith scare you so much?

    Is it afraid of being wrong?
    Faith is the mechanism used to avoid any chance or doubt of being wrong, so I think you've got some wires crossed.




    Comment


    • #32
      We're all operating on faith here. The only question involves the nature and worth of it. Rationalists assume the measure of their measure, that reason itself is trustworthy. There's no demonstrating that it is without using it as proof, a logical fallacy of begging the question...so....
      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

      Pro-Life






      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
        Why does faith scare you so much?

        Is it afraid of being wrong?
        Why do you ask loaded question? Faith doesn't scare me anymore than the bogyman. I don't appeal to faith becuase I think it is irrational. I want to know truth, and faith does nothing to aid me in distinguishing reality from fantasy.

        And yes, I am afraid of being wrong, hence my distaste for appeals to faith and fallacy. I believe in what is probable, not comfortable.
        - Chalmer

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
          Says who?

          Where in the world do you get this idea from?
          Logic my friend.

          If God is the ultimate Lover and this “Love” is defined in part as being unselfish, then God would be the most unselfish being there could be. God would then have to be driven by this “Love” to serve others (it is still out of His choice), because “Godly type Love” compels individuals to do stuff and for God that would be everything. We talk about “free will” and the way Godly type Love is defined there has to be free will, but if you have the ability and can allow Godly type Love to always prevail (like it would be for God) then God will always do the very best thing every time which is the most Loving thing. That does not mean God can not destroy or punish evil individuals (bad for them), since that is the best thing for agents that can, will and do Love like He Loves.

          If God did not make humans as the result of His Love then what other logical reason could there be and still be consistent with God being the ultimate Lover and example of that Love?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
            Your restatement, however, doesn't correct what I said at all. It just generalizes it. It is perfectly reasonable to point out one of the implications of your position. If God permits us choice unrestricted by his own standards of good or evil, then that permission necessarily includes permission to choose to do evil on some level. Surely if we can figure out that God is offering us the choice to do good or evil, God can figure that out as well.



            Well, if not for the "more than", God's desire to prevent evil would have to trump free will, and we would have to expect that there would be no evil.
            Have you read my post 13? Godly type Love requires free will.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by IoverE View Post
              I don't agree they were the best representatives of the human race. My Children mind better than Adam and Eve. If you're so rebellious you can't go 1 day without defying God, why get best human credit? Most of the people on this board go much longer than that following much harder commands of God than don't eat some fruit.
              Thank you for your comments.
              First, no one believes it was just one day (Adam named the animals before Eve came on the seen for one thing). You do not have to believe this story actually happened as written to get the message.
              (I know enough about myself to realize I would have eaten that fruit before Eve even got there.) The reason I believe Adam and Eve are presented as the best the human race has to offer is the following:
              1. Their bodies with the help of the tree of life could last forever.
              2. They inherited no bad genes from a mutated stock of old genes.
              3. They were “adults” that had not sinned.
              4. Their brains were not the result of any defective parts handed down from their ancestry.
              5. They were trained (programmed) to adulthood by the best parent there could ever be; God Himself.
              6. God would have trained (programmed) them with all the information they might like to have/ need (like any good parent would do for their children).
              7. What happen could have been protected by anyone, since it fits the actions of humans that are given free will.
              8. The message of why the Garden does not work for humans would best be taught with the example using the best humans possible (Christ is both human and God).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Granite View Post
                What person in their right mind would not heal or prevent the agony of a loved one if it was within their power to do so?
                God did not save His own son from suffering, because the son was doing it out of His Love for Him and others. God allows great suffering to happen in this world out of tremendous anguish for Him to provide the opportunities needed for willing individuals to see, experience, share, give, and receive “Godly type Love”. You think you want God to provide us all with our own Garden of Eden situation, but that does not work! Read my post 13.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
                  Why do you ask loaded question? Faith doesn't scare me anymore than the bogyman. I don't appeal to faith becuase I think it is irrational. I want to know truth, and faith does nothing to aid me in distinguishing reality from fantasy.

                  And yes, I am afraid of being wrong, hence my distaste for appeals to faith and fallacy. I believe in what is probable, not comfortable.
                  - Chalmer
                  It is all very logical. Read my post 13.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bling View Post
                    Thank you for your comments.
                    First, no one believes it was just one day (Adam named the animals before Eve came on the seen for one thing). You do not have to believe this story actually happened as written to get the message.
                    (I know enough about myself to realize I would have eaten that fruit before Eve even got there.) The reason I believe Adam and Eve are presented as the best the human race has to offer is the following:
                    1. Their bodies with the help of the tree of life could last forever.
                    2. They inherited no bad genes from a mutated stock of old genes.
                    3. They were “adults” that had not sinned.
                    4. Their brains were not the result of any defective parts handed down from their ancestry.
                    5. They were trained (programmed) to adulthood by the best parent there could ever be; God Himself.
                    6. God would have trained (programmed) them with all the information they might like to have/ need (like any good parent would do for their children).
                    7. What happen could have been protected by anyone, since it fits the actions of humans that are given free will.
                    8. The message of why the Garden does not work for humans would best be taught with the example using the best humans possible (Christ is both human and God).
                    I appreciate the response. I understand you're saying they were the original perfect model. My problem is seeing the "perfect model" fail so soon after creation. I also don't see how if they had the best training possible,ie God, that the product would fail so miserably so soon. First time they were tempted the succombed. Could they have been tempted as easily to kill? We see that at least one of their children had little problem with murder.
                    "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
                    ...Stephen F Roberts

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by bling View Post
                      This comes up all the time and I am in agreement with you that Christians give poor answers most of the time. I reason from the point of the objective: Man’s objective in life is to obtain Godly type Love so he can Love God and others.
                      How do you justify this conclusion, that our objective is to obtain God like love?

                      This “Love” is defined by Jesus and His words, but can also be found in 1 Cor. 13 and in John’s writings.
                      The Bible should not typically be used as evidence for its own assumptions.

                      God created humans in the first place as a result of His Love, God’s Love would have compelled Him to create agents that could obtain Godly type Love for the sake of those that would obtain Godly type Love.
                      How do you know?

                      God objective with man is to do all He can to help willing humans fulfill their object. (God being Love means He is totally unselfish which is demonstrated in all that He does.)
                      Such as holding belief and worship as a perquisite for entry into heaven.
                      You like many do not understand why a Loving God would not put all humans in a Garden of Eden situation?
                      I understand completely. I also understand why an elf would flee to the forbidden lands when faced with the annihilation of middle earth. Consistency does not imply fact.

                      God has to quench His desire for us to be in a heaven type home, so we can have the honor and privilege of obtaining Godly type Love. This world is ideally suited for willing individuals to obtain Godly type Love and grow Godly type Love.
                      Again, how do you know. Establishing the logical consistency of your god only implys that your conclusions follows from your premises. And your premise, that our objective is to achieve God like love, was not supported by evidence in this post.
                      - Chalmer

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by bling View Post
                        Have you read my post 13?
                        I have now.

                        Originally posted by bling View Post
                        Godly type Love requires free will.
                        Which is completely compatible with what I've said. God would rather allow us complete freewill than restrain us from doing evil.
                        Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          Rationalists assume the measure of their measure, that reason itself is trustworthy. There's no demonstrating that it is without using it as proof, a logical fallacy of begging the question...so....
                          While we all must take that leap, it seems strange to call it faith. What is the alternative to saying that reason is trustworth? It can't even be expressed without self-contradiction. Calling such an act as accepting the validity of reason by necessity "faith" seems to undermine the entire concept of faith.
                          Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                            While we all must take that leap, it seems strange to call it faith.
                            Stranger to call it anything else, absent reason... Sorry about that.
                            What is the alternative to saying that reason is trustworthy?
                            Recognizing that it isn't necessarily so, that the delusion the rationalist sees the faithful living through might be nothing more than a reflection of his own.
                            It can't even be expressed without self-contradiction.
                            And that would be the point...faith is the fulcrum upon which the world moves or is moved.
                            Calling such an act as accepting the validity of reason by necessity
                            I allow no such thing, though most of those found in Bedlam would agree with you whole heartedly, regarding their own position.
                            "faith" seems to undermine the entire concept of faith.
                            Rather it places it where it need and must be, in a position of foundational preeminence.
                            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                            Pro-Life






                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by IoverE View Post
                              I appreciate the response. I understand you're saying they were the original perfect model. My problem is seeing the "perfect model" fail so soon after creation. I also don't see how if they had the best training possible,ie God, that the product would fail so miserably so soon. First time they were tempted the succombed. Could they have been tempted as easily to kill? We see that at least one of their children had little problem with murder.
                              You are missing the point and confusing “perfection” which is not suggested with God’s description of “good”. Adam and Eve where Godly “good”, the best that could be made to fulfill the “objective”, but that does not mean God made them, “perfect” in that they instinctively posed Godly type Love form all eternity. God can not create a being that of is own free will chose to Godly type Love automatically and still be Godly type Love (that would be like programming a robot to love, which might be wonderful, but that is not Godly type Love). Godly type Love requires a free will moral decision on the part of the agent himself with likely perceived alternatives (the pleasures of sin for a season). Ready 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John and one of the gospels to see what type of Love I am talking about. Would you want someone to “love” you because a gun was pointed to her head and she really had no choice? Would you like to be “Loved” personally by the greatest person imaginable that just wants to know you and be with you and do all He can for you and expects nothing in return or would you liked to be loved because that is what they owe you, for what you have done for them (pay back love)?

                              Man’s object is not to keep from sinning. All mature adult humans have fail at that object. The objective is to obtain Godly type Love, so we can Love God and others with this Godly type Love. The easiest way for mature humans to obtain Godly type Love is through accept God’s Love and the easiest way to accept God’s Love is through accepting God’s forgiveness. If we accept God’s forgiveness then we will automatically “Love” Luke 19: “… he that is forgiven much will Love much…” In order to accept God’s forgiveness of our sins we have to sin (this is no problem for all people including Adam and Eve). Sin is part of the plan and has an objective, which is seen in the Garden story.

                              Now once we have Godly type Love we do not have to go on sinning to get Godly type Love, but those without Godly type Love should and do go on sinning until they reach the point wanting relief from the burden of sin, forgiveness from their creator and help to be better. There does come a point when God has afforded a person every opportunity to repent and turn to Him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                - Chalmer asked:
                                How do you justify this conclusion, that our objective is to obtain God like love?
                                There are books on this stuff.
                                In scripture: God presents us with a mission statement (given as a command) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy and Love other.
                                We must first conclude what a God would be like if there was a God. That would mean taking the time to show He would: have no beginning, be extremely powerful, be extremely good, not be arbitrary, and fit the description of the Christian God.
                                The atheist Steven Hawkins concluded man has an object, but he did not know what it was.
                                Let me say this, I understand “Godly type Love” to be man’s objective, because it perfectly fits what has and is happening in the world and fits what is in scripture. It does not fit what other religions teach, so others will not believe this to be the objective if they believe other teaching. It is for me the most likely alternative objective of man from what I have studied.
                                If you have a different objective we can compare to see which would be the best. If you were a truly all Loving God what objective would you give to your created beings?
                                - Chalmer asked:
                                The Bible should not typically be used as evidence for its own assumptions.
                                I am not trying to assume anything, just define what type of Love I am talking about, since “love” in the English language has such a wide definition. You could read any Christian description of “Agape” or Godly type Love as used in scripture.
                                - Chalmer asked:

                                How do you know?
                                Logic my friend.

                                If God is the ultimate Lover and this “Love” is defined in part as being unselfish, then God would be the most unselfish being there could be. God would then have to be driven by this “Love” to serve others (it is still out of His choice), because “Godly type Love” compels individuals to do stuff and for God that would be everything. We talk about “free will” and the way Godly type Love is defined there has to be free will, but if you have the ability and can allow Godly type Love to always prevail (like it would be for God) then God will always do the very best thing every time which is the most Loving thing. That does not mean God can not destroy or punish evil individuals (bad for them), since that is the best thing for agents that can, will and do Love like He Loves.

                                If God did not make humans as the result of His Love then what other logical reason could there be and still be consistent with God being the ultimate Lover and example of that Love?

                                - Chalmer asked:
                                Such as holding belief and worship as a perquisite for entry into heaven.
                                The only thing I see that gets me into heaven is accept God’s Love.

                                - Chalmer asked:
                                I understand completely. I also understand why an elf would flee to the forbidden lands when faced with the annihilation of middle earth. Consistency does not imply fact.
                                I miss the point? God has shown the Garden situation to be a lousy place fulfill my earthly objective, so I do not want to be there now.
                                - Chalmer asked:
                                Again, how do you know. Establishing the logical consistency of your god only implys that your conclusions follows from your premises. And your premise, that our objective is to achieve God like love, was not supported by evidence in this post.
                                I can not write a book in one post and do not want to or would you read it if I did. I am a Christian explaining a Christian’s understanding of the objective, which then turns around and consistently explains why things happen. If you start with another objective, then you will conclude God is arbitrary, God is inconsistent, God does not care, God is evil, and so on. I am trying to show how everything is consistent given this objective.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X