Taking a stand

[Immanuel Can]

True or not, it's a fact that only humans can stop it. God has no part in that equation.

You're going to find out you're wrong about that.

If it hasn't been wrong for the last 2000 years, why would it be for the next 2000?.

2 Peter 3: 3-9.

Anybody can tell you're not being specific at all, actually. So I put the question again: what did you expect God to do, that you think He hasn't done?

Let's see if this has any chance of sinking in: Since god has done nothing, nada, zilch,it would be a non-sequitur to talk or think about what he hasn't done.

But you don't know whether or not He's done anything. And the reason is that you don't know what you'd be looking for, if it had happened. You say "God's done nothing." Others say, "God's done lots." All you're telling me is that you're personally unaware of what God has done. And I would expect that. You're not looking for anything in specific, so you'll never find anything.

Would you expect some divine reckoning or rebalancing if the existence of the human race were itself in peril, or only a silence as if we were never here?

At the time there were approximately 2000 million (2 billion) people on the planet. At what point could this have been a "potential peril to the human race", i.e., not just to one or two but the human race? Compared to the kind of peril - the kind we may be heading into - WWII isn't even a footnote!

That's fine, if you say so. But then, that means there's no "peril," and thus you can't complain that God should have done something about the "peril" that doesn't really exist yet.

Btw, where was "divine intervention" when by the time Hitler killed his thousands, Stalin already killed his millions? Where was god then?

He was allowing man free will. And look what men were doing with it.

But Dubious has no evidence, by his own admission. All that tells us is that Dubious has no evidence. It doesn't tell us what evidence others can have.

To repeat: It's true, Dubious has no evidence...because... evidence, real evidence amounting to proof, is not possible or accessible either way. It's one of those situations where it's really that simple!

Again, you don't know that. All you know is that Dubious doesn't know of any. And that Dubious doesn't know something tells us nothing about what it is possible to know, or not possible to know.

...for a theist, probabilities aren't required, desirable or necessary.

Well, that's not even remotely true, anymore than your claim that Theists don't do science or history. Probabilities are necessary for everybody, by nature of being human beings. Not one of us has absolute knowledge, so we're all obligated to work that way.

You're really stymied by that question, aren't you!

Your copout is so blatant it should be up in lights! You haven't the slightest explanation for a very simple reason; it's impossible to reconcile the multiple paradoxes which are guaranteed to follow. So how best to get rid of a problem that can't be resolved except to say that one is unworthy of an explanation! This is so YOU!

You want an answer? Here you go.

People are responsible to God for what they know. They're not responsible for what they don't know. What a person who lived before Christ knows, or what a tribesman on a remote island knows, neither you or I are able to say: we don't know how God is dealing with that person. What we do know for sure is that you've had every chance to know...which means that for them, there may be diminished culpability, or even forgiveness based on God's middle knowledge; for God knows all facts and all possibilities. Therefore, He can even know what a person would have believed if he/she had known more than he/she did. God is always right about these things.

So there are extenuations, special mercies, and unique opportunities that apply to such people. But for somebody who should know, and could know, and refuses to know, there are no extenuations.

Christ's death was the same as for many thousands of others

If you say so, then that's all it is for you. But for countless others, and for Western civilization itself, it was the most important galvanizing event in human history. So we can agree to disagree on that.

It will be settled.

[Dubious]

He was allowing man free will. And look what men were doing with it

Yes, let's take a look to see what god was allowing. He allowed ONE Free Will to murder millions whose free will, I'm sure, would have preferred to keep on living. It seems in terms of free will god was allowing a single such to overrule many such free wills.

Why did god grant man free will if not to make him independent of His Will by becoming his own agent. What is it for if not that? To postulate free will whenever he does evil and likewise claim the involvement of some kind of god agency when he attempts to rectify it completely destroys the meaning of a free will hypothesis.

If, as you consistently mention, god granted a de facto free will to man it must follow whatever good he does accrue only to him as well as any evil he perpetrates. Human responsibility remains complete in either case. Free Will, in effect, creates agency and whatever consequences it may have.

All you know is that Dubious doesn't know of any. And that Dubious doesn't know something tells us nothing about what it is possible to know, or not possible to know.

Knowing has its limits dependent on the ability to know. For all we know we're not the most intelligent species in the galaxy...or perhaps we are the most knowledgeable based on what the human brain can manage.

For all the reasons Dubious doesn't know why would YOU presume to know what so far has been impossible to know? In effect, how would you know what is written in the bible is in fact the word of god which you insist is true. It's a double standard; you profess to know while others like me are limited to know nothing about what is possible or not possible to know. So convenient!

Probabilities are necessary for everybody, by nature of being human beings. Not one of us has absolute knowledge, so we're all obligated to work that way.

No argument. Of course, that also puts the bible and all such scriptures under the same probability screen which allows for enough space to doubt its veracity.

People are responsible to God for what they know. They're not responsible for what they don't know. What a person who lived before Christ knows, or what a tribesman on a remote island knows, neither you or I are able to say: we don't know how God is dealing with that person.

That at least makes sense as a bible-based theistic explanation. Let god manage his own paradoxes for the command one must believe in Jesus to be saved results in a plethora of inconsistencies and extremely ungodlike injustices. Who are we to figure it out!

You could have said that from the start!

Christ's death was the same as for many thousands of others

If you say so, then that's all it is for you. But for countless others, and for Western civilization itself, it was the most important galvanizing event in human history. So we can agree to disagree on that.

Why would I disagree? Christianity has been with us for over 2 millenniums. Such an obvious historical fact cannot be denied. But what is equally historical is that Christ's death was as mundane as they come not any different from the thousands of others the Romans chose to do away with.

One would have thought that the method by which such a "world galvanizing event" was consummated would have been as unique as the sacrifice itself and not simply another addition to the many thousands who suffered the same way. If Christ was the son of god why put his death within the same context as all the others the only difference being its purpose? In just about every kind of redemption myth sacrifice became a singularity, unique for all time.

Put metaphorically, it wouldn't do to have a rabble search for the Holy Grail.

[Immanuel Can]

He was allowing man free will. And look what men were doing with it

Yes, let's take a look to see what god was allowing. He allowed ONE Free Will to murder millions whose free will, I'm sure, would have preferred to keep on living. It seems in terms of free will god was allowing a single such to overrule many such free wills.

I ask again: what do you think God should have done? You must know, since you want me to see this as a failure of some kind. What would God "doing the right thing" have looked like, in your estimation?

Serious question, not a trap. I really am interested in what you think about that.

If, as you consistently mention, god granted a de facto free will to man it must follow whatever good he does accrue only to him as well as any evil he perpetrates.

Quite so. But good and evil are to be judged as the Righteous Judge judges, not as mere man estimates things. Man too often "lets things slide" -- most particularly, he excuses his own sins when he indicts them in others. God judges fairly.

Free Will, in effect, creates agency and whatever consequences it may have.

Exactly so. And part of having freedom of the will means that one is also free to do evil, as well as good. And evil is not something that stops short of harming others...in fact, that's one of its key features. So since man has free will, it can come as no surprise that some of them use it in order to do vicious and even atrocious things.

All you know is that Dubious doesn't know of any. And that Dubious doesn't know something tells us nothing about what it is possible to know, or not possible to know.

For all the reasons Dubious doesn't know why would YOU presume to know what so far has been impossible to know?[/quote]
You don't know it has been "impossible to know." You only know that you don't know it. You don't know what I, or anybody else, does know or can know. And some of us claim to know things about God which you evidently don't. You may, if you wish, assume we're lying or dissembling in some way; or you may assume we do know the sorts of things we claim to know.

But which is it? Well, you wouldn't know that, either.

Probabilities are necessary for everybody, by nature of being human beings. Not one of us has absolute knowledge, so we're all obligated to work that way.

No argument. Of course, that also puts the bible and all such scriptures under the same probability screen which allows for enough space to doubt its veracity.

I don't ask that you exempt the Bible from such tests. In fact, I'd encourage the gathering of the relevant data and the personal making of exactly that assessment.

You could have said that from the start!

It wasn't relevant, though. I'm not speaking to somebody who is short of opportunities to hear these things, and not to somebody who was born prior to Christ. I like to focus on the relevant.

...what is equally historical is that Christ's death was as mundane as they come

That, again, is something you couldn't know. But the secondary evidence is certainly stacked against that assumption. As you say, that singular death has proved to be the most momentous event in human history, judging by its impact. One could not exactly call that "mundane."

Whether, beyond that, it has the spiritual significance the Bible attaches to it, or I would also ascribe to it, is a whole other level, of course. But there's no denying the concatenations of that event are monumental.

If Christ was the son of god why put his death within the same context as all the others the only difference being its purpose?

Because He was not just God...He was also man. And his purpose was to become the Intercessor between both. So he underwent the things that men undergo, in the common round of life, that He might be their Advocate. Quite a price for God to pay, actually.

[Age]

What if we remove cannibalism from the equation. Say the miners had plenty of food but not plenty of air. Should some of them stop breathing to conserve air for the rest?

you do REALIZE that depending on 'who' you ASK the ANSWER will be DIFFERENT, right?

The question is still the same: What is moral - what is good for the majority's survival, or what is good for the individual's survival?

'What IS 'moral'?' is a VERY GOOD QUESTION, TO 'me' anyway.

Would absolutely ANY one like or care to ANSWER 'this question' here?

As for what is good for the majority's survival, then 'this' IS VERY DIFFERENT to what is good for the individual' survival?

What is 'good' for the former is just 'working together, as one', Whereas, what is 'good' for the latter is KILLING ALL of the "others" in this one example above here.

BUT, has 'what is 'good' for an individual's survival' REALLY got ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' to do with 'morals' or 'morality'?

[Age]

We're not, though. It's evident we're actually accelerating it.

True or not, it's a fact that only humans can stop it. God has no part in that equation.

You're going to find out you're wrong about that.

Here we have ANOTHER CLAIM, which IS, ONCE MORE, BELIEVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY True. HOWEVER, if ASKED if this one has ABSOLUTELY ANY PROOF AT ALL for 'this CLAIM', then, ONCE AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY NO proof AT ALL will be presented.

So, what we ESSENTIALLY have here is ANOTHER GREAT example of HOW and WHEN one ALLOWS 'their OWN personal BELIEFS' to OVERRIDE absolutely ANY and ALL 'common sense', 'rationality', AND 'logical reasoning'.

Be specific: what would you have expected Him to do, since you conclude he "has done absolutely none" of it?

I was very specific as anybody except you can tell.

Anybody can tell you're not being specific at all, actually. So I put the question again: what did you expect God to do, that you think He hasn't done?

And yet, given human freedom, suffering of innocent parties is inevitable. The only alternative turns out to be the banning of human moral freedom itself. And I doubt you're likely to regard a God that deprived all creatures of volition as "good."

The allowance of human freedom by god to perpetrate any and all kinds of evil to the nth degree denotes god as one immoral monster.

Think again: how important is your personhood? How important is your freedom to choose? How important is your personal autonomy?

People die for these things. Sometimes, people even give up their own lives so that others can have a chance of getting them -- as when a soldier goes to war to secure the country for his wife and kids, or just to ensure the continuation of his nation.

That makes these things awfully important. An "immoral monster" would be an entity that deprived you of these things...not one that guaranteed you have them, despite their bad side effects.

Interesting: that's exactly what God has promised to do. It's what is meant by what Locke called, "The Great Day," and we know as "The Judgment." But how soon should it come?
Think it through: think what you're calling for. Because it's coming.

You haven't answered the question...surprise, surprise! I'll repeat:

Here's a question I'd really like a response to: Would you expect some divine reckoning or rebalancing if the existence of the human race were itself in peril, or only a silence as if we were never here?

The human race itself isn't in peril...yet. When it is, we'll see.

But let's play along, as if it had been. Let's take probably the biggest example of a potential "peril to the human race," WWII.

Who's to say what God "hasn't done" about that? For example, for many reasons, historians marvel that Hitler didn't conquer all of Europe. How did he lose the Battle of Britain, for example? How did he fail to press his early wolf-pack advantage in the Atlantic? Why didn't he succeed in wiping out the allies at Dunkirk? How did he not succeed in taking Stalingrad? Yet time and time again, the worst was thwarted, contrary to logistical expectations. We can say that men somehow did these miracles; or we can wonder if there wasn't some real divine intervention involved...

You can attribute it to luck. You can attribute it to divine intervention. Which it was, we will see, one day.

That day is not yet.

I think what you must mean is that Dubious has no knowledge of God, and so Dubious assumes nobody else can have such knowledge either

It's true, Dubious has no such knowledge of god for knowledge only exists when something exists to cause it.

But Dubious has no evidence, by his own admission. All that tells us is that Dubious has no evidence. It doesn't tell us what evidence others can have.

Well, if you believe some things, and yet don't believe others, on what basis do you make your selections between what you choose to believe and what you choose not to?

Does this really need a reply! One chooses based on its probability,

How does one calculate that?

Does it apply to those who lived before Jesus and never heard of him?

You're really stymied by that question, aren't you!

Not even close. It's a very easy question to answer. I merely point out that it changes nothing for you, personally. You haven't got any "skin in that game," so it's not really worth my time to bother. Either way, that person isn't you.

...why would such an exceptional sacrifice on the part of Jesus have to be performed in the usual style of a Roman execution under which many thousands suffered the same agony and humiliation?

Name one, what?

Name one of those many dead men. If you can't name any others, ask yourself how, over 2,000 years later, you can definitely name this one.

[Age]

True or not, it's a fact that only humans can stop it. God has no part in that equation.

If it hasn't been wrong for the last 2000 years, why would it be for the next 2000?.

2 Peter 3: 3-9.

LOL 'this one' STILL links to some, countless CHANGED wording, from some human being created texts, as though 'those words' ACTUALLY EXPLAIN some 'thing'.

'This one' is SO completely and utterly CLOSED that 'it' STILL can NOT SEE just how Truly STUPID 'it' REALLY IS being here.

Let's see if this has any chance of sinking in: Since god has done nothing, nada, zilch,it would be a non-sequitur to talk or think about what he hasn't done.

But you don't know whether or not He's done anything. And the reason is that you don't know what you'd be looking for, if it had happened. You say "God's done nothing." Others say, "God's done lots." All you're telling me is that you're personally unaware of what God has done.

All you are alluding to is that you are personally aware of some 'thing'.

And I would expect that.

We would expect 'that'.

You're not looking for anything in specific, so you'll never find anything.

you are NOT looking for ANY 'thing', OF COURSE, OTHER than what you currently BELIEVE IS TRUE.

Would you expect some divine reckoning or rebalancing if the existence of the human race were itself in peril, or only a silence as if we were never here?

At the time there were approximately 2000 million (2 billion) people on the planet.

SO WHAT?

At what point could this have been a "potential peril to the human race", i.e., not just to one or two but the human race?

At what point could 100 billion, 200 billion, or MORE billion could there be a 'potential peril to the human race'?

JUST 100 human beings ONLY could be A HUGE 'potential peril to the human race', OBVIOUSLY.

Compared to the kind of peril - the kind we may be heading into - WWII isn't even a footnote!

It does NOT matter ONE IOTA how MANY human beings are living. What Truly MATTERS IS HOW 'they' ARE 'living'.

IF 'they' are 'living' WITH Nature, then there is NO issue, NOR absolutely ANY 'potential peril AT ALL'.

However, IF 'they' are 'living' AGAINST Nature, then 'they', and the REST, ARE in 'imminent DANGER'. And, the MORE AGAINST 'you' ARE 'living', then the CLOSER 'you' ARE BECOMING to THAT DANGER.

By the way, what can be CLEARLY NOTICED and SEEN here is ANOTHER example of just HOW MUCH the 'human being' thought of 'itself' as being the SUPERIOR 'race' and the ONLY 'one' in which to be thinking ABOUT or concerned ABOUT. But 'this' was the result of Truly False AND Wrong MISINTERPRETATIONS, and then 'those teachings', especially like in the "christian ones".

That's fine, if you say so. But then, that means there's no "peril," and thus you can't complain that God should have done something about the "peril" that doesn't really exist yet.

Btw, where was "divine intervention" when by the time Hitler killed his thousands, Stalin already killed his millions? Where was god then?

He was allowing man free will. And look what men were doing with it.

AND, LOOK AT what 'you', adult human beings, ARE DOING, individually AND collectively, in the days when this is being written.

ABSOLUTELY NONE OF 'you' are ANY BETTER than those two HUMAN BEINGS. 'you' just DO 'your' Wrong 'things' DIFFERENTLY.

To repeat: It's true, Dubious has no evidence...because... evidence, real evidence amounting to proof, is not possible or accessible either way. It's one of those situations where it's really that simple!

Again, you don't know that. All you know is that Dubious doesn't know of any. And that Dubious doesn't know something tells us nothing about what it is possible to know, or not possible to know.

And all "immanuel can" KNOWS is 'it' has NO PROOF AT ALL, NEITHER.

...for a theist, probabilities aren't required, desirable or necessary.

Well, that's not even remotely true, anymore than your claim that Theists don't do science or history. Probabilities are necessary for everybody, by nature of being human beings. Not one of us has absolute knowledge, so we're all obligated to work that way.

So, are 'you' NOW CLAIMING that 'you', "immanuel can", ACTUALLY DO NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE that SOME 'male gendered 'Thing' known as God created the Universe'?

Do 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE that at some so-called 'day of judgment' 'you' WILL BE SAVED? Or, was 'this' too just some FANTASY and/or BELIEF that 'you' could have just been HOLDING ONTO here, AS WELL?

Your copout is so blatant it should be up in lights! You haven't the slightest explanation for a very simple reason; it's impossible to reconcile the multiple paradoxes which are guaranteed to follow. So how best to get rid of a problem that can't be resolved except to say that one is unworthy of an explanation! This is so YOU!

You want an answer? Here you go.

People are responsible to God for what they know.

Well 'you' just CLAIMED that NO one has 'absolute knowledge', which MEANS that 'you', "immanuel can", do NOT have 'absolute knowledge', which therefore MEANS there may well be NO ACTUAL 'male gendered 'Thing', known as God'.

So, what do 'you' ACTUALLY KNOW, which 'you' CLAIM people are responsible TO God FOR?

They're not responsible for what they don't know.

But, HOW could ANY one 'know' ANY 'thing' if there IS NO one who has 'absolute knowledge'?

Do 'you', "immanel can", even KNOW the DIFFERENCE between 'knowing things' and NOT even having 'absolute knowledge'?

Now, OF COURSE, 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER these QUESTION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY 'you' do NOT even KNOWN what 'you' are talking ABOUT, and CLAIMING here.

In fact are 'you' even REMOTELY AWARE of just HOW MANY TIMES 'you' CONTRADICT "your" OWN 'self' here?

What a person who lived before Christ knows, or what a tribesman on a remote island knows, neither you or I are able to say: we don't know how God is dealing with that person. What we do know for sure is that you've had every chance to know...which means that for them, there may be diminished culpability, or even forgiveness based on God's middle knowledge;

What do 'you' even MEAN by, 'there may be 'even forgiveness'? LOL Are 'you' here suggesting that God ONLY 'forgives' SOME people?

for God knows all facts and all possibilities.

So, what IS 'this' so-called 'God's middle knowledge', then EXACTLY?

Therefore, He can even know what a person would have believed if he/she had known more than he/she did.

LOL 'you' IDIOT "immanuel can".

'you', human beings, ONLY BELIEVE 'things' WHEN 'you' KNOW LESS. NOT WHEN 'you' KNOW MORE.

'you', people, ONLY BELIEVE 'things' ONLY WHILE 'you' ARE PRESUMING or ASSUMING 'things' to be true.

'you', "immanuel can", REALLY DO NEED TO STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING 'things' ARE TRUE and REALLY JUST STOP and LISTEN TO WHAT EXACTLY God IS SAYING and TELLING 'you', INSTEAD.

'you', "immanuel can", CONTINUALLY KEEP MISINTERPRETING God, Itself. Even here above 'you' STILL KEEP ON INSISTING that God is A "he".

Talk ABOUT PRESENTING A PRIME example of one who ONLY LISTENS TO, and ONLY FOLLOWS, what "other" people HAVE TOLD 'it'. It does NOT MATTER how OBVIOUSLY False AND Wrong what 'it' HAS BEEN TOLD, as long as "immanuel can" BELIEVES 'it' IS TRUE "immanuel can" WILL KEEP PRESENTING that OBVIOUSLY IRREFUTABLY LIE/S.

God is always right about these things.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, 'you' are just about ALWAYS Wrong ABOUT 'these things' "immanuel can". As can be and WILL BE IRREFUTABLY PROVED True.

The MORE 'you' SPEAK and WRITE here "immanuel can" the MORE 'you' CONTRADICT "your" 'self', and the MORE HYPOCRITICAL 'you' ARE PRESENTING "your" 'self'.

So there are extenuations, special mercies, and unique opportunities that apply to such people. But for somebody who should know, and could know, and refuses to know, there are no extenuations.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, in one sentence "immanuel can" CLAIMS that there IS NO one with 'absolute knowledge' BUT, and HOWEVER, if absolutely ANY does NOT AGREE WITH what "immanuel can" CLAIMS TO KNOW, then 'they' are REFUSING TO KNOW what "immanel can" CLAIMS IS the 'ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE', or the 'ABSOLUTE TRUTH' of 'things'.

Even if 'you' WANTED TO BE MORE HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY here "immanuel can" 'you' could NOT BE.

Christ's death was the same as for many thousands of others

If you say so, then that's all it is for you. But for countless others, and for Western civilization itself,

Well CHOOSING 'this' so-called 'civilization' here ONLY FURTHER DESTROYS 'your' BELIEFS and CLAIMS. [/quote]

So-called "western civilization", itself, SPIRALING DOWNFALL is partly DUE to the ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, and Truly MISGUIDED 'teachings' FROM WITHIN "christian organizations".

it was the most important galvanizing event in human history.

And WHY was the KILLING of just ANOTHER 'human being', supposedly, the MOST 'important galvanizing event in human history'', TO 'you', "immanuel can"?

The ONLY REAL 'noteworthy' 'thing' of 'that' was just ANOTHER example of 'adult human being's' ABSOLUTE CLOSEDNESS and STUPIDITY.

So we can agree to disagree on that.

It will be settled.

YES, it WAS 'settled' A LONG TIME AGO, relatively, that 'you', adult human beings, can be REALLY CLOSED and Truly STUPID. 'This' IS being OBSERVED, almost continuously, IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS IS BEING WRITTEN.

[Age]

He was allowing man free will. And look what men were doing with it

Yes, let's take a look to see what god was allowing. He allowed ONE Free Will to murder millions whose free will, I'm sure, would have preferred to keep on living. It seems in terms of free will god was allowing a single such to overrule many such free wills.

I ask again: what do you think God should have done?

There IS NO what God 'should' 'have done'. God JUST DOES what 'It' DOES, JUSTLY I will add.

You must know, since you want me to see this as a failure of some kind.

LOL Do 'you' REALLY NOT SEE that just WANTING TO KILL, and just KILLING, human beings, 'free willingly', is NOT some sort of ABSOLUTE FAILURE?

What would God "doing the right thing" have looked like, in your estimation?

What God IS ACTUALLY DOING, which 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT SEEING and NOT LISTENING TO, is the ACTUAL and ABSOLUTE Right 'THING', EXACTLY.

As ALL WILL BE REVEALED, soon enough.

Serious question, not a trap.

Are SOME of 'your' QUESTIONS NOT 'serious', and/or just 'traps' "immanuel can"?

I really am interested in what you think about that.

WHY?

BECAUSE 'you' do NOT KNOW? Or BECAUSE 'you' do KNOW?

If, as you consistently mention, god granted a de facto free will to man it must follow whatever good he does accrue only to him as well as any evil he perpetrates.

Quite so. But good and evil are to be judged as the Righteous Judge judges, not as mere man estimates things.

'you' say 'this' as though some sort of 'judging' or 'judgment' takes place over some sort of time.

ONCE one KNOWS Right FROM Wrong, then KNOWING WHEN 'you', human beings, ARE BEING 'good' OR 'evil' happens ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY, WITH NO ACTUAL "judging" OCCURRING. This is just BECAUSE WHY 'you' ALL DO, what 'you' DO, is ALREADY KNOWN.

Man too often "lets things slide" -- most particularly, he excuses his own sins when he indicts them in others. God judges fairly.

Talk ABOUT just RE-REPEATING, OVER and OVER, 'the words' that one HAS, PREVIOUSLY, HEARD and READ, but while NEVER ACTUALLY KNOWING what 'those words' ARE ACTUALLY MEANING and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Free Will, in effect, creates agency and whatever consequences it may have.

Exactly so. And part of having freedom of the will means that one is also free to do evil, as well as good.

So, IF 'you', "immanuel can", HAVE 'free will', then WHY do 'you' CONTINUE TO KEEP DOING Wrong?

And evil is not something that stops short of harming others...in fact, that's one of its key features. So since man has free will, it can come as no surprise that some of them use it in order to do vicious and even atrocious things.

BUT WHY do 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, do NOT ALWAYS DO what IS GOOD and Right, ONLY?

WORK OUT and DISCOVER 'this' WHY, then ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD and PROGRESSING can and WOULD BEGIN.

All you know is that Dubious doesn't know of any. And that Dubious doesn't know something tells us nothing about what it is possible to know, or not possible to know.

For all the reasons Dubious doesn't know why would YOU presume to know what so far has been impossible to know?[/quote]
You don't know it has been "impossible to know." You only know that you don't know it. You don't know what I, or anybody else, does know or can know. And some of us claim to know things about God which you evidently don't. You may, if you wish, assume we're lying or dissembling in some way; or you may assume we do know the sorts of things we claim to know.

But which is it? Well, you wouldn't know that, either.[/quote]

Well what I DO WHEN I SEE one of 'you', human beings, CLAIM TO KNOW 'things' is ASK 'you' to PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF for that CLAIM and/or BELIEF.

And, if 'you' do NOT, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN IS that, REALLY, 'you' do NOT KNOW what 'you' ASSUME and CLAIM 'TO KNOW'.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ONLY 'THINK' 'you' know what 'you' know here "immanuel can". AND, 'you' have ALREADY that ACTUALLY 'you' do NOT KNOW what 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'you' know.

In fact a LOT of what 'you' CLAIM TO KNOW is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. For example, like 'your' CLAIM that 'you' KNOW God IS A "he".

Probabilities are necessary for everybody, by nature of being human beings. Not one of us has absolute knowledge, so we're all obligated to work that way.

No argument. Of course, that also puts the bible and all such scriptures under the same probability screen which allows for enough space to doubt its veracity.

I don't ask that you exempt the Bible from such tests. In fact, I'd encourage the gathering of the relevant data and the personal making of exactly that assessment.

EITHER WAY, the bible COULD BE COMPLETELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect BECAUSE if 'your' LOGIC here HOLDS UP, absolutely NO one has 'absolute knowledge'.

And, for 'you' to even BEGIN to ASSUME or CLAIM that 'you', or ANY one, KNOWS that God IS A "he", would be Truly STUPID on 'their part', RIGHT?

You could have said that from the start!

It wasn't relevant, though. I'm not speaking to somebody who is short of opportunities to hear these things, and not to somebody who was born prior to Christ. I like to focus on the relevant.

...what is equally historical is that Christ's death was as mundane as they come

That, again, is something you couldn't know.

AND, likewise, 'you' ALSO could NOT KNOW that some human being named and labeled "jesus christ" hanging from some 't' was NOT mundane, right?

Or, do 'you' STILL REALLY BELIEVE that 'you', "immanel can", DO KNOW that THAT Truly MUNDANE 'thing' was, LAUGHABLY, 'the most important galvanizing event in human history'?

By the way, do 'you' even KNOW how MANY TIMES 'you' CONTRADICT "your" 'self' here "immanuel can"?

But the secondary evidence is certainly stacked against that assumption. As you say, that singular death has proved to be the most momentous event in human history, judging by its impact. One could not exactly call that "mundane."

What ALLEGED 'impact'?

It was just ANOTHER case of ANOTHER human being DYING by 'the hands' of OTHER CLOSED, JUDGMENTAL, and BELIEVING 'human beings'.

MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of "others" have been KILLED by the EXACT SAME WAY. Even 'you' listed 'them' above here. So, NOTHING 'special' NOR 'significant' ABOUT that ONE OTHER one.

Whether, beyond that, it has the spiritual significance the Bible attaches to it, or I would also ascribe to it, is a whole other level, of course. But there's no denying the concatenations of that event are monumental.

LOL Talk ABOUT a PRIME example BLINDED by their TWISTED and CONTORTED BELIEFS.

If Christ was the son of god why put his death within the same context as all the others the only difference being its purpose?

Because He was not just God...He was also man.

AND, 'what', EXACTLY, SEPARATES 'that one' FROM ALL OF the "OTHER" 'ones' of 'you'?

That 'you' ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER 'this' CLARIFYING QUESTION, properly AND correctly, PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, that 'you' ARE STILL SOME WAY OFF of GAINING the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things' here.

And his purpose was to become the Intercessor between both.

And what? NO other human being baby WAS/IS?

ONLY 'that one and only one'?

Seems rather POINTLESS of there ONLY EVER being JUST one, right?

So he underwent the things that men undergo, in the common round of life, that He might be their Advocate. Quite a price for God to pay, actually.

LOL Now God is such A WEAK individual that 'It' 'paid a price'.

LOL "immanuel can" 'you' REALLY DO HAVE A Truly False, Wrong, TWISTED, and DISTORTED PERCEPTION of what God IS, EXACTLY.

[Dubious]

I ask again: what do you think God should have done? You must know, since you want me to see this as a failure of some kind. What would God "doing the right thing" have looked like, in your estimation?
Serious question, not a trap. I really am interested in what you think about that.

The options available to an all-powerful entity are far beyond anything I can imagine. It's not up to me, you or anyone to determine what god should have done. The only thing that's clear from a human perspective, god is thoroughly without reaction to any event no matter how hellish whether by deistic indifference, or simply because no such entity exists. It all adds up to the same effect, nada!

In the OT, it was never a question of "what god should have done"; He just went ahead and did it. No one knew what He was going to do until it happened. Now conversely, god appears so anemic in power that even theists are compelled to imagine what he should have done! Strange, indeed, that this glaring anomaly hasn't been noticed.

As an example, which you asked for, there were 30 or 40 attempts on Hitler's life. Had one of the earlier ones been allowed to succeed the Holocaust would have vastly diminished in scope or, most likely, not have happened at all. The same goes for the likes of Stalin of whom Churchill was so enamored. Would it have been so difficult for our great loving father to have saved millions by inducing a heart attack or stroke to fell the murderous bastard?

You can view god's policy of non-interference any way you like. I'm not in at all interested in forcing my views on you. It's just a conversation of no consequence that's coming to an end shortly.

God judges fairly.

I have absolutely no indication of that while on planet earth. We only have human judges here, many of whom are corrupt or stupid. Beyond that I don't have any reason to expect any tribunals headed by a righteous judge either, oblivion being the great equalizer for which nothing more than nature is required. In King Lear, Edgar says "nature, thou art my goddess". Nature in its dominion is god but without any moral intent. As such, it is neither my god or goddess since it's impossible to make any demands of it or presume it has a conscience of any kind.

Exactly so. And part of having freedom of the will means that one is also free to do evil, as well as good. And evil is not something that stops short of harming others...in fact, that's one of its key features. So since man has free will, it can come as no surprise that some of them use it in order to do vicious and even atrocious things.

...as you say, exactly so! Free will is a two lane highway in which the lines are often crossed.

I don't ask that you exempt the Bible from such tests. In fact, I'd encourage the gathering of the relevant data and the personal making of exactly that assessment.

Very nice! And if my assessments don't correlate with yours, then obviously I'm wrong on all counts and you're right because the bible is the be all and end all of truth for you. Your statement is completely misleading, to put it mildly, because you know well enough any critique or discussion of the bible's fallacies are completely unacceptable to a hard-wired theist. Proof of that is no-longer required; it's already piled on top of each other.

The irony is that if you followed your own advice, there is no way you could think the way you do now. You may still lean toward theism but in a somewhat diminished less hard-boiled version.

what is equally historical is that Christ's death was as mundane as they come

As you say, that singular death has proved to be the most momentous event in human history, judging by its impact. One could not exactly call that "mundane."
Whether, beyond that, it has the spiritual significance the Bible attaches to it, or I would also ascribe to it, is a whole other level, of course. But there's no denying the concatenations of that event are monumental.

That "singular death" was a common death prescribed by state law applicable to many thousands and definitely not in itself of any historical significance except as a precursor to resurrection and its concatenations.

To repeat, without Paul with his almost exclusive concentration on the Resurrection, Jesus would have remained a nonentity or nearly so, in the annals of history. Nothing in Christ's life was important to him including his death however it happened. What re-created Christianity from an inconsequential Jewish sect to an ecumenical one, or, as you say the most momentous event in human history was Paul's emphasis on the resurrection. In Paul, it's as if all the details which create a three-dimensional being disappeared. The fulfillment of that was left to the gospels with variations of the same story...meaning the one that was accepted.

Because He was not just God...He was also man. And his purpose was to become the Intercessor between both. So he underwent the things that men undergo, in the common round of life, that He might be their Advocate. Quite a price for God to pay, actually.

...yes! And the price, the pain and the agony - depending on how long one lasted - was the same for all those who were not such divinely mandated intercessors. Somewhat unfair in consideration of the many who, no doubt were innocent themselves being forced to such a conclusion. If Christ were god, it's fair to say that Jesus actually paid the least price in redeeming sinful human nature. His crucifixion didn't even last as long as those who were still alive after one or two days.

[Immanuel Can]

I ask again: what do you think God should have done? You must know, since you want me to see this as a failure of some kind. What would God "doing the right thing" have looked like, in your estimation?
Serious question, not a trap. I really am interested in what you think about that.

The options available to an all-powerful entity are far beyond anything I can imagine. It's not up to me, you or anyone to determine what god should have done.

But it's you who insists He hasn't done whatever it is you think He should.

If you don't know what He "should have done," how can you know whether or not He actually did it?

As an example, which you asked for, there were 30 or 40 attempts on Hitler's life. Had one of the earlier ones been allowed to succeed the Holocaust would have vastly diminished in scope or, most likely, not have happened at all. The same goes for the likes of Stalin of whom Churchill was so enamored. Would it have been so difficult for our great loving father to have saved millions by inducing a heart attack or stroke to fell the murderous bastard?

Ah.

So your version of God's responsibility is something like, "Strike all dictators dead, before they can do their evil." Is that right?

Exactly so. And part of having freedom of the will means that one is also free to do evil, as well as good. And evil is not something that stops short of harming others...in fact, that's one of its key features. So since man has free will, it can come as no surprise that some of them use it in order to do vicious and even atrocious things.

...as you say, exactly so! Free will is a two lane highway in which the lines are often crossed.

You'll have to explain that comment to me. It's not apparent what you intend, there.

I don't ask that you exempt the Bible from such tests. In fact, I'd encourage the gathering of the relevant data and the personal making of exactly that assessment.

Very nice! And if my assessments don't correlate with yours, then obviously I'm wrong on all counts and you're right because the bible is the be all and end all of truth for you.

No, I say no more, if you do that. Once you've looked at the data and made your own choice, I let you live and die by it.

To repeat, without Paul with his almost exclusive concentration on the Resurrection, Jesus would have remained a nonentity or nearly so, in the annals of history.

The Bible agrees with you about that. The Resurrection is the single most important event in history, and its reality or non-reality changes everything. See 1 Cor. 15, and you'll see the Bible makes the same case even more strongly than you attempt to here.

Because He was not just God...He was also man. And his purpose was to become the Intercessor between both. So he underwent the things that men undergo, in the common round of life, that He might be their Advocate. Quite a price for God to pay, actually.

...yes! And the price, the pain and the agony - depending on how long one lasted - was the same for all those who were not such divinely mandated intercessors.

The crucifixion, Biblically speaking, was far more than the merely physical. But I suspect you aren't interested in entertaining that thought, so I'll forbear comment further on that. You're very nigh unto blasphemy here, and believe it or not, I don't want to see you have to answer for that. So I won't provoke it.

[Dubious]

I read a couple of your responses; don't need to read them all to state categorically...conversation over!

Enough time wasted.

[Gary Childress]

I read a couple of your responses; don't need to read them all to state categorically...conversation over!

Enough time wasted.

Apparently if it were somehow proven that Athiests are right, then according to IC, he would have no reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money. Maybe we should take that as an indicator of what sort of person he truly is inside?

[Lacewing]

I read a couple of your responses; don't need to read them all to state categorically...conversation over!

Enough time wasted.

Apparently if it were somehow proven that Athiests are right, then according to IC, he would have no reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money. Maybe we should take that as an indicator of what sort of person he truly is inside?

Yep! Just look at how he is as a Christian!

Clearly, some people need theism to rein in their evils. Some people use theism to let their evils reign. Either way, such people insist that everyone needs what they need, and/or that they are forgiven for whatever they do. And that's supposed to somehow be better than reasonable people who don't get tangled up in any of that.

[henry quirk]

if...Atheists are right, then according to IC, he would have no reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money

Correction: if atheists are right, he would have no objective reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money.

He might have a whole whack of subjective reasonings (opinions or preferences) on why he ought not off someone for lunch money, but he'd have no objective measure of right or wrong.

[Lacewing]

if...Atheists are right, then according to IC, he would have no reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money

Correction: if atheists are right, he would have no objective reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money.

Correction: if atheists are right, he would have no imagined objective reason not to run around murdering people for their lunch money.

[henry quirk]

if...Atheists are right, then according to IC, he would have no reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money

Correction: if atheists are right, he would have no objective reason not run around murdering people for their lunch money.

Correction: if atheists are right, he would have no imagined objective reason not to run around murdering people for their lunch money.

So: if atheists are wrong, he would have a imagined objective reason not to run around murdering for lunch money?