Christianity

[Harbal]

Not quite. And that's the difference you're not catching yet.

What you call the difference makes no difference whatsoever. Your position depends on the existence of God, which is a matter of opinion, so your assertion that there are objective moral values is no more than a matter of opinion.

[seeds]

The study of what? Of declarations? Or of the Bible?

If you mean the Bible, the term is, obviously, "Theology." If you mean "declarations," it would be "Linguistics."

But I'm puzzled by the reason for such an easy question, so maybe I'm misunderstanding...

Sorry, IC, I jumped to conclusions....I haven't actually seen you state that you do support the Biblical version of events,...

Forgive me for butting in, but allow me to help you, Harbal.

tillingborn asked IC the following question:

Do you believe that God created the "original mating pair" like this?
"The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being...
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

To which IC answered with this:

Of course. I have no idea why you even bother asking the question, since I'm a Christian.

_______

[Harbal]

What's your pleasure?

Even if I told you, you wouldn't do it.

[iambiguous]

Just a second...

"chuckle, chuckle, chuckle"

Okay, now I'm ready.

Message too long, rhetorical, dull and redundant -- not worth it, given the quality of 'insight' expressed. Not interesting.

Sorry...can't be bothered.

I did it again!!!

Reduced him down to this.

Just as I did with his pal henry quirk. Only henry has enough sense to recognize that the only way to sustain his own fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality with me is to put me in his "penalty box". Take me out of his head altogether.

Sure, IC claims my points lack insight, but who here is fooled?

This whole exchange with him now revolves [for me] around his bizarre refusal to post the video clip/segment that he claims is most effective in demonstrating that in fact the Christian God does reside in Heaven.

With the souls of all those who are other than Christians here on the line [including his BFF henry], you'd think he'd be eager to bring this to our attention.

But he continues to "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of it.

Why?!

And we all know there must be a part of him that knows full well why...because it doesn't exist.


On the other hand, anyone here actually watch all the videos? Did you spot the crucial clip/segment? Are you interested in saving souls?

Link us please.

[Immanuel Can]

Not quite. And that's the difference you're not catching yet.

What you call the difference makes no difference whatsoever. Your position depends on the existence of God, which is a matter of opinion,

Well, no: "opinion" would change nothing, either way.

But did I not say that this answer would not please a secular person? That's because there's a suppositional component: if one supposes there's a God, an answer of the kind I offered makes sense. If one presupposes no God, how can it?

So the matter's going to rest on what one takes as the fundamental presupposition: does God exist, or not? But "opinion" will neither make Him exist if He did not, nor would it make Him disappear if He does.

That fundamental presuppostion is itself going to have to be grounded in some evidence. For me, there's good evidence warranting that belief -- some of which I have named briefly in my other message. I might add to all that, that for any Christian, the pre-eminent evidence of God's existence and character is Jesus Christ Himself. So I feel I have a great deal to offer the question.

For a committed Atheist, there is...what evidence that God cannot exist? None, of course. So one must wonder, why is he so sure?

[Immanuel Can]

What's your pleasure?

Even if I told you, you wouldn't do it.

Yes, I see. Well, as the great theologian, Mick Jagger once said, "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

[Immanuel Can]

Just a second...

"chuckle, chuckle, chuckle"

Okay, now I'm ready.

Message too long, rhetorical, dull and redundant -- not worth it, given the quality of 'insight' expressed. Not interesting.

Sorry...can't be bothered.

I did it again!!!

Reduced him down to this.

Congratulations. You've succeeded in stultifying conversation and making further conversation not worthwhile.

I'm sure your mamma is proud.

[iambiguous]

Message too long, rhetorical, dull and redundant -- not worth it, given the quality of 'insight' expressed. Not interesting.

Sorry...can't be bothered.

I did it again!!!

Reduced him down to this.

Just as I did with his pal henry quirk. Only henry has enough sense to recognize that the only way to sustain his own fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality with me is to put me in his "penalty box". Take me out of his head altogether.

Sure, IC claims my points lack insight, but who here is fooled?

This whole exchange with him now revolves [for me] around his bizarre refusal to post the video clip/segment that he claims is most effective in demonstrating that in fact the Christian God does reside in Heaven.

With the souls of all those who are other than Christians here on the line [including his BFF henry], you'd think he'd be eager to bring this to our attention.

But he continues to "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of it.

Why?!

And we all know there must be a part of him that knows full well why...because it doesn't exist.


On the other hand, anyone here actually watch all the videos? Did you spot the crucial clip/segment? Are you interested in saving souls?

Link us please.

Congratulations. You've succeeded in stultifying conversation and making further conversation not worthwhile.

I'm sure your mamma is proud.

He always snips out the good parts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Given that, let's take a simple case. In my last message, I implied racism and genocide are objectively evil. Does that mean nobody ever committed racism or genocide?

There you have it. If racism and genocide are objectively evil as you say, and god commanded racism and genocide of the Canaanites according to the texts, then in this instance god is an author of evil.

That by the way.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What if I believe in a different God, and he says racism is fine?

Little Brother. There is good genocide and there is evil genocide. If you are going to commit genocide please please be sure you commit the good variety.

[Immanuel Can]

Given that, let's take a simple case. In my last message, I implied racism and genocide are objectively evil. Does that mean nobody ever committed racism or genocide?

There you have it. If racism and genocide are objectively evil as you say, and god commanded racism and genocide of the Canaanites according to the texts, then in this instance god is an author of evil.

Unless it wasn't a case of "genocide," but of rightful judgment.

In other words, God didn't deplore these people for no reason at all, but because of what the Bible calls, "the inquity of the Amorites," in which they had persisted for some 400 years and more already, despite knowing that what they were doing was evil. And if God allowed them, say, to immolate their children in the worship of false gods (as indeed, they did routinely) and the worship of those false gods going unjudged was sending the nations to a lost eternity (as indeed it would), then maybe, just maybe, you might consider God more just for judging them than if He had not.

But He can make that case, or whatever the appropriate case is, to you, when you see Him. I need not vindicate it now.

[Immanuel Can]

He always snips out the good parts.

You have "good parts"?

Maybe you should drop the masses of redundant, shallow nonsense, then, and just keep the good bits. We'd all like that, I'm sure.

[iambiguous]

He always snips out the good parts.

You have "good parts"?

Maybe you should drop the masses of redundant, shallow nonsense, then, and just keep the good bits. We'd all like that, I'm sure.

Providing me with yet another opportunity to post the good parts:

Just as I did with his pal henry quirk. Only henry has enough sense to recognize that the only way to sustain his own fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality with me is to put me in his "penalty box". Take me out of his head altogether.

Sure, IC claims my points lack insight, but who here is fooled?

This whole exchange with him now revolves [for me] around his bizarre refusal to post the video clip/segment that he claims is most effective in demonstrating that in fact the Christian God does reside in Heaven.

With the souls of all those who are other than Christians here on the line [including his BFF henry], you'd think he'd be eager to bring this to our attention.

But he continues to "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of it.

Why?!

And we all know there must be a part of him that knows full well why...because it doesn't exist.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, Mr. Snippet.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In other words, God didn't deplore these people for no reason at all, but because of what the Bible calls, "the inquity of the Amorites," in which they had persisted for some 400 years and more already, despite knowing that what they were doing was evil.

First, god commanded nothing. The early Hebrews did what they did and by ventriloquism animated a ‘command’ into a managed imago of a divine figure. There is where the evil is to be located and thought about.

I can help you!

There is a spray I’ve invented I call Meme-Away and I suggest you buy some from me. Just spray it on and guaranteed you’ll be meme-free for 24 hours.

PM me to get started.

[Harbal]

Not quite. And that's the difference you're not catching yet.

What you call the difference makes no difference whatsoever. Your position depends on the existence of God, which is a matter of opinion,

Well, no: "opinion" would change nothing, either way.

But did I not say that this answer would not please a secular person? That's because there's a suppositional component: if one supposes there's a God, an answer of the kind I offered makes sense. If one presupposes no God, how can it?

So the matter's going to rest on what one takes as the fundamental presupposition: does God exist, or not? But "opinion" will neither make Him exist if He did not, nor would it make Him disappear if He does.

That fundamental presuppostion is itself going to have to be grounded in some evidence. For me, there's good evidence warranting that belief -- some of which I have named briefly in my other message. I might add to all that, that for any Christian, the pre-eminent evidence of God's existence and character is Jesus Christ Himself. So I feel I have a great deal to offer the question.

For a committed Atheist, there is...what evidence that God cannot exist? None, of course. So one must wonder, why is he so sure?

I'm not a commited atheist in exactly the same way that I am not a committed non-believer in Father Christmas. Both God and Santa are a non-issue. When someone says that values are objective I might find it hard to resist challenging them, but it's not because such a person is doing me any harm. It isn't any more important to me than an argument over which is the best ever rock band, which is obviously Led Zeppelin. Is it really significant enough to bother with quite an elaborate argument, including moral ontology and moral epistemology? which you probably realise I would have to google before I could engage in. The matter is no more than a difference of opinion, IC, and all we can do is agree to differ. Well I can easily agree to it.