Philosophy Now Forum

R C

“It depends on us agreeing on common definitions.”

To a point sure. But it is said of philosophy that at the end of discussions is when the definition of words is qualified. If we are so far apart at the beginning, the chances of decent discourse is doubtful.

-----------------------------

“I realize that you believe it is a myth. But your claim is more than that - that the original authors also took it as a myth. All the evidence I am aware of points the other way.”

Wow. All the evidence. No dissention between scholars.
That must be a first.

Then you have to ignore all modern scholarship.

On David etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfDJbi5g ... re=related

-----------------------------

“Greatest I am wrote:

Do you believe in those? Talking animals and staffs that turn into snakes or water that moves on command?

I don't understand questions like this. You don't question my belief in a God who can create an entire universe, but you do question whether I think that God powerful enough to part the Reed Sea - something a modern Harrier has done to one of our local rivers.”

I would have thought that fantasy, miracles and magic would have covered all of creation as well.

You did not deny such beliefs and thus will assume that you do.
This makes any conversation more difficult. It gives some a place to hide to get away from hard questions. It must be ok because God can do no evil is a common mantra and kills any discussion.

----------------------------

“let's start with the confessional Lutheran response. As one starts to ask questions like, "what is spirit?" and "if spirit is non-physical, how can it interact with the physical?", the confessional Lutheran response is that this happens through the Word and Sacraments.”

And my response would be something like.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

---------------------------

“It's the fault of the person who removed the safeguards.”

I agree and in the case of Eden, God did just that by placing Satan in the garden knowing that he had given Satan the power to deceive the whole world including A & E. Not as simple as you make it out to be is it?

-------------------------------

Less analysis of the conversation and words and more speaking to issues would be nice.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:To a point sure. But it is said of philosophy that at the end of discussions is when the definition of words is qualified.

Sure. A good point. Can you attribute that quote? I might keep it in my coffer.

Greatest I am wrote:If we are so far apart at the beginning, the chances of decent discourse is doubtful.

But only at the beginning. As we understand each other better, the discussion should get easier.

Greatest I am wrote:Wow. All the evidence. No dissention between scholars.
That must be a first.

That's not what I said. I acknowledged the dissension between scholars. My statement, though is that amongst those who think Genesis a myth I haven't seen anything but opinion and conclusions that don't follow from the premise. So, all the evidence that I'm aware of points to ancient Hebrews taking Genesis as history ... and again, I'm not talking about whether Genesis is history. I've admitted I don't have extra-Biblical evidence for that - something I imagine you would require. Now, I'll admit my statement may have implied something too general. Did all ancient Hebrews think that? Probably not. But it appears all the authors of the OT did.

Greatest I am wrote:Then you have to ignore all modern scholarship.

On David etc.

Hmm. Not wise to accuse me of ignoring that there are differing opinions and then turn around and imply that all scholarship on David is unified.

Greatest I am wrote:You did not deny such beliefs and thus will assume that you do.
This makes any conversation more difficult. It gives some a place to hide to get away from hard questions. It must be ok because God can do no evil is a common mantra and kills any discussion.

That's an unfounded leap, to go from my belief in miracles to assuming I believe God does no evil. If that's what you wanted to know, then ask that question. Yes, I believe God does no evil. But it doesn't make the conversation difficult. There is an easy epistemological argument to put me in a corner if that's what you're after. If this is only about "winning", I'm not interested.

Why would you bring this up? You're in the same position wrt your apotheosis.

If it helps, I define miracles per C.S. Lewis as interference in nature, not, as most define it, as violating the laws of nature. In fact, that was part of a recent Philosophy Now article.

Greatest I am wrote:And my response would be something like.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther

Which means what? That you agree with me? Or "if that works for you, great"?

FYI, I'm familiar with the quote from Luther, and it is often used out of context. But, even so, if you intend to hold me to my confessional Lutheran position, you'll need to use the Book of Concord. I'm not bound by just anything that Luther happened to say. He was known to enjoy his beer, and I believe he commented on that fact. I actually don't like beer (much to the disappointment of my German relatives).

Greatest I am wrote:I agree and in the case of Eden, God did just that by placing Satan in the garden knowing that he had given Satan the power to deceive the whole world including A & E. Not as simple as you make it out to be is it?

It was the serpent who deceived Eve. It never says it was Satan - though I suppose that is a trivial point as one fallen angel or another was likely behind it all. Still, God didn't "place" the serpent in the garden for the purpose of deceiving; didn't give that power. The story definitely doesn't say that.

You're free to give your opinions, but please acknowledge them as such.

Greatest I am wrote:Less analysis of the conversation and words and more speaking to issues would be nice.

I was trying to cut to the quick - theodicy. If my direction was wrong, suggest another.

Resha Caner wrote:[

Greatest I am wrote:You did not deny such beliefs and thus will assume that you do.
This makes any conversation more difficult. It gives some a place to hide to get away from hard questions. It must be ok because God can do no evil is a common mantra and kills any discussion.

That's an unfounded leap, to go from my belief in miracles to assuming I believe God does no evil. If that's what you wanted to know, then ask that question. Yes, I believe God does no evil. But it doesn't make the conversation difficult. There is an easy epistemological argument to put me in a corner if that's what you're after. If this is only about "winning", I'm not interested.

Why would you bring this up? You're in the same position wrt your apotheosis.

If it helps, I define miracles per C.S. Lewis as interference in nature, not, as most define it, as violating the laws of nature. In fact, that was part of a recent Philosophy Now article.

Greatest I am wrote:And my response would be something like.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther

Which means what? That you agree with me? Or "if that works for you, great"?

FYI, I'm familiar with the quote from Luther, and it is often used out of context. But, even so, if you intend to hold me to my confessional Lutheran position, you'll need to use the Book of Concord. I'm not bound by just anything that Luther happened to say. He was known to enjoy his beer, and I believe he commented on that fact. I actually don't like beer (much to the disappointment of my German relatives).

Greatest I am wrote:I agree and in the case of Eden, God did just that by placing Satan in the garden knowing that he had given Satan the power to deceive the whole world including A & E. Not as simple as you make it out to be is it?

It was the serpent who deceived Eve. It never says it was Satan - though I suppose that is a trivial point as one fallen angel or another was likely behind it all. Still, God didn't "place" the serpent in the garden for the purpose of deceiving; didn't give that power. The story definitely doesn't say that.

You're free to give your opinions, but please acknowledge them as such.

Greatest I am wrote:Less analysis of the conversation and words and more speaking to issues would be nice.

I was trying to cut to the quick - theodicy. If my direction was wrong, suggest another.

"Sure. A good point. Can you attribute that quote? I might keep it in my coffer."

Sory. I cannot remember which philosopher coined it.

---------------------

" I acknowledged the dissension between scholars. My statement, though is that amongst those who think Genesis a myth I haven't seen anything but opinion and conclusions that don't follow from the premise."

All that is said of God is opinion. We have no known facts or knowledge of anything about God who seems to have been invented by men.

--------------------------

"Yes, I believe God does no evil."

Sodom's destruction including children and babies was not evil?
The genocide in Noah's day was not evil?
God hardening Pharaoh's soft heart so that he could flex his wath by murdering children instead of the parents, the innocent instead of the guilty, was not evil?

------------------------------

"Why would you bring this up? You're in the same position wrt your apotheosis."

No. I consider the Godhead a product of nature. Not the creator of it.

---------------------------------

"It was the serpent who deceived Eve."

Then why punish A & E.
Would you punish your child if deceived by a more powerful force?

------------------------------------

" It never says it was Satan - though I suppose that is a trivial point as one fallen angel or another was likely behind it all."

Was God punishing A & E justified if an angel who God allowed in the garden was the true evil force?

-----------------------------

" Still, God didn't "place" the serpent in the garden for the purpose of deceiving;"

What then was the purpose?

------------------------------

" didn't give that power. The story definitely doesn't say that."

Revelation 12:9
So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Regards
DL

As I've noted before, many of your objections seem to center around death. So, let me ask, what makes death evil?

Seeing as there is quite a bit of bible being tossed about, do you, DL and Resha, both believe the Bible to be written by (a) god? And if so, is the Bible infallible in what is written?

Resha Caner wrote:As I've noted before, many of your objections seem to center around death. So, let me ask, what makes death evil?

Death is not something desirable but it is not evil.
It is a part of life.

As we evolve we must sin. Many of those sins are not evil either in evolutionaru terms.


Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speaks to that at about the 10 min. mark.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c ... F680C1DBEB

Regards
DL

mtmynd1 wrote:Seeing as there is quite a bit of bible being tossed about, do you, DL and Resha, both believe the Bible to be written by (a) god? And if so, is the Bible infallible in what is written?

In a word, no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXr ... re=related

All Gods and their bibles, unless one suffers an apotheosis, should be seen and read as myths.

Regards
DL

mtmynd1 wrote:Seeing as there is quite a bit of bible being tossed about, do you, DL and Resha, both believe the Bible to be written by (a) god? And if so, is the Bible infallible in what is written?

There is a long list of differences between me and DL. I'm sure this is one of them. However, each one of those differences is likely a very lengthy discussion. I'm willing to have that discussion, but before we spin off into this, might I ask what prompted your question?

Resha Caner wrote:As I've noted before, many of your objections seem to center around death. So, let me ask, what makes death evil?

Am I to take it that you did not like your answers to my questions and thus decided to deflect?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Death is not something desirable but it is not evil.

It looks like most of your post was copied from an earlier reply. If you need to qualify the semantics, fine, but you didn't answer the question. So, I'll rephrase: what makes death undesirable?

Resha Caner wrote:

mtmynd1 wrote:Seeing as there is quite a bit of bible being tossed about, do you, DL and Resha, both believe the Bible to be written by (a) god? And if so, is the Bible infallible in what is written?

There is a long list of differences between me and DL. I'm sure this is one of them. However, each one of those differences is likely a very lengthy discussion. I'm willing to have that discussion, but before we spin off into this, might I ask what prompted your question?

Nice to see that you bob and weave and deflect all the time and not just with me.

Don't like to answer questions do you?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Am I to take it that you did not like your answers to my questions and thus decided to deflect?

No, again, trying to sift out the chaff. It would have been tedious to answer each of your points only to have you ignore most of my reply by posting yet more unrelated material.

If there was part of what you said that you think is highly crucial, note it again and I'll try to get to it.

Resha Caner wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Death is not something desirable but it is not evil.

It looks like most of your post was copied from an earlier reply. If you need to qualify the semantics, fine, but you didn't answer the question. So, I'll rephrase: what makes death undesirable?

To most, it is an unknown condition and they prefer to stay in a known one.

To me, I know it is not the end of my consciousness but still do not desire it because I like where I am and prefer to interact with those I love and others instead of not.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Don't like to answer questions do you?

I don't like to be misrepresented.

Resha Caner wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Am I to take it that you did not like your answers to my questions and thus decided to deflect?

No, again, trying to sift out the chaff. It would have been tedious to answer each of your points only to have you ignore most of my reply by posting yet more unrelated material.

If there was part of what you said that you think is highly crucial, note it again and I'll try to get to it.

Your answers are tedious because you are trying to hide your true thoughts.

Everywhere you see a question mark deserves an answer in the sense that it will tell me how you think and if I even want to continue the discussion. Go back and fill in the blanks.

Regards
DL