Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[frangiuliano115]

I would say that there are most definitely portions of scripture that can be interpreted in such a way as to give guidance to anyone on any matter. But the key word in that sentence is ’interpreted’. We are talking about the possibility of there being an objective truth for all moral matters and it seems to be as slippery a concept as one could imagine.

Atheists should never be encouraged by the fact that scripture can be interpreted differently by different denominatins. We agree that God exists and we agree that Jesus is His son, and we agree that He died to redeem us from our sins, and we agree the he resurrected on the 3rd day, and we agree that He is still with us. It’s just that He’s invisible to the eye but not to the heart.

It would mean that you are simply following a rule and have no concept of right or wrong. I’m sure that you realise the difference between not doing something simply because you have been told not to do it and not doing it because you know it’s wrong. It also means that you would never question a rule: ‘It says here I mustn’t do X, therefore I mustn’t do it’. As far as I know, there is no problem in Catholics questioning their faith. In fact, you have to KNOW that what you are being told is true rather than blindly accepting it. If there are reasons why you shouldn’t do X, then those reasons are available to anyone, not just to those of faith. They cease to be religious and become secular.

I know the difference to the beginning part of pp. Tell me, am I a catholic questioning my faith or a christian questioning my faith? Big difference. I prefer christian. My answer goes back to the father/child relationship and I’d just be repeating. I agree that some reasons cease to be religious and become secular. But let’s take an example. SSM. Seems like more and more people are accepting this. So does that make it right? All of a sudden, in the past 40 yrs we’ve come to this point. Were we wrong before? Are we wrong now? How do we agree on this? Christians understand why this is wrong - 40 years ago and also now. The belief can’t change because it is a findamental christian belief. Unless you’re a liberal Episcopalian church and are trying to get along with the “world”.

If by ‘Natural Law’ you mean ‘The Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Do Something’ then I’d agree. But there always seems to be a tendency by Christians to tie in the Natural Law with a Natural Law Giver, therefore giving it the Divine imprimatur. It is then becomes less a decision reached by reasonable people and more a divine and objective command. But if we can reach a decision on right or wrong by reasoned argument, then we don’t need any divine command. It becomes a secular exercise.

Uh oh. I’m in trouble already! The natural law. Of course I mean it as you say it is. But how did that natural law get into our heart or mind or conscience?

Do you really think any agreement could be reached by “reasonable people”. You’re pretty lucky to have run into reasonable people so much of the time, as seem apparent by the many times you mention them. I haven’t run into so many.

Notwithstanding that there are very often very good arguments on both sides of any debate and we could say that there is no correct answer. At which point you bring in the divine and say that there must be a right answer. And we’re back to Step One. The ONLY answer at which we can arrive is by reasonable argument. And there are no definitive answers on that route. Only consensus.

How to get that consensus? Maybe I’ve read too many books. How about Lord of the Flies? That was rather disturbing.

I think it would be more accurate to say what you think that Jesus would do. It would be your interpretation of His reaction: ‘I can’t imagine Jesus saying that this was OK so it must be wrong’.

If I remember, you’re a dad. We can’t know our children so well because there’s a hidden side to them. But I’m sure you know your wife. You wouldn’t know what she would think about something?? I’ll be some times you didn’t do something or say something because you knew she’d get upset.

It wouldn’t have to end. Because I don’t need to believe that Jesus is God to use what you refer to as Natural Law to reach a reasoned decision on any matter.

You know, reaching a reasoned decision is NOT the reason you should believe that Jesus is God.

If there are no reasons why it would be wrong, then it is not immoral. Just saying that the church says so ain’t good enough these days. And if the church gives reasons as to why they believe it to be wrong, those reasons have to stand or fall on their own merits. As you may have noticed, the arguments against SSM, for example, are failing. Time was (and still is, to a certain degree) that people accepted what the church said because the church had said it.

I knew we could agree on something! I don’t really care what the church says. I care about what God says.

And I also agree that times are changing and people do not just accept what the church says. But you know what? God never changes.

“The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of God shall stand forever.”
Isaiah 40:8

I felt you deserved a reply but I know it will mean little because people who believe in the existence of God and believe in God see the world in a different way. I’m more than sure I haven’t said anything you haven’t heard many times before.

God bless

 

[Bradski]

Atheists should never be encouraged by the fact that scripture can be interpreted differently by different denominatins.

It’s not a case of being encouraged. This isn’t a point scoring exercise. And it’s not between different denominations either. Catholics interpret what the church says in different ways. I’m sure they would say that are each being led by God in that interpretation. And notwithstanding that, there are matters about which the church has made no comment, so Catholics base their interpretation on Natural Law or scripture and still come up with different viewpoints. And we’re back to Step One.

But let’s take an example. SSM. Seems like more and more people are accepting this. So does that make it right? All of a sudden, in the past 40 yrs we’ve come to this point. Were we wrong before? Are we wrong now? How do we agree on this?

We don’t have to agree. But I would say that the majority of people were wrong before and it happens that the majority of people are right now. Very few people saw anything wrong with sending young children to sea or down mines before. Very few people saw anything wrong with using torture to get a confession. Very few people saw anything wrong in burning witches. Very few people saw anything wrong with mistreating animals. Or killing whales. Or treating women as second class citizens. Or emptying waste directly into rivers. Or treating the native population as non-citizens. Or Black-face variety programmes. Or beating schoolkids.

Some people say: ‘Well, it was OK then. I couldn’t see anything wrong with it. Didn’t do me any harm. That’s just the way it was’ Well, not any more.

We move on. We realise the mistakes we have made and move on. We put the errors of our parents to one side and move on. We appreciate the immorality of the past and move on. And the majority of us, through reasoned debate, realise this. We are all better informed. We are all better educated. We all have more access to information that allows us to make better decisions than did our predecessors.

A toddler drowns on a Turkish beach and we all see it. And almost as a direct result, thousands gather to say that it’s unacceptable and demand we do something about it and a government acts and increases the quota of refugees we take. And the world is a little better off. Everyone now knows someone who is gay and so we see the direct result that certain laws have on a group of people and many people say that it is wrong and demand that we do something about it. And governments act and make changes to the laws. And the world is a little better off.

The natural law. Of course I mean it as you say it is. But how did that natural law get into our heart or mind or conscience?

The clue is in the name. It’s entirely natural.

Do you really think any agreement could be reached by “reasonable people”. You’re pretty lucky to have run into reasonable people so much of the time, as seem apparent by the many times you mention them. I haven’t run into so many.

There aren’t that many. But you’ll recognise one when you see one. They won’t be dogmatic. They’ll listen to valid arguments. They’ll ignore personal preferences. They’ll discount hype and propaganda. They’ll discount invalid evidence. They’ll pass on arguments from authority. They’ll be willing to change their minds.

If I remember, you’re a dad. We can’t know our children so well because there’s a hidden side to them. But I’m sure you know your wife. You wouldn’t know what she would think about something?? I’ll be some times you didn’t do something or say something because you knew she’d get upset.

If I’m not sure about something, I’ll ask her. And I’ll get an unequivocal answer. It’ll be the same answer she’d give to anyone else and there would be no room for interpretation. I won’t have to rely on something that someone else wrote that they thought she might have said at some point.

And I also agree that times are changing and people do not just accept what the church says. But you know what? God never changes.

Possibly you are right. But that’s not what we’ve been talking about. Which is how we know that when people say they know what God wants we know they are right. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?

I felt you deserved a reply but I know it will mean little because people who believe in the existence of God and believe in God see the world in a different way. I’m more than sure I haven’t said anything you haven’t heard many times before.

God bless

Thanks for the response.

 

[Rau]

… Very few people saw anything wrong with sending young children to sea or down mines before. Very few people saw anything wrong with using torture to get a confession. Very few people saw anything wrong in burning witches. Very few people saw anything wrong with mistreating animals. Or killing whales. Or treating women as second class citizens. Or emptying waste directly into rivers. Or treating the native population as non-citizens. Or Black-face variety programmes. Or beating schoolkids.

Some people say: ‘Well, it was OK then. I couldn’t see anything wrong with it. Didn’t do me any harm. That’s just the way it was’ Well, not any more.

We move on. We realise the mistakes we have made and move on. We put the errors of our parents to one side and move on. We appreciate the immorality of the past and move on. And the majority of us, through reasoned debate, realise this. We are all better informed. We are all better educated. We all have more access to information that allows us to make better decisions than did our predecessors.

A toddler drowns on a Turkish beach and we all see it. And almost as a direct result, thousands gather to say that it’s unacceptable and demand we do something about it and a government acts and increases the quota of refugees we take. And the world is a little better off. Everyone now knows someone who is gay and so we see the direct result that certain laws have on a group of people and many people say that it is wrong and demand that we do something about it. And governments act and make changes to the laws. And the world is a little better off.

As you rightly assert, majority opinion need not accord with “morality”. Similarly, we cannot conclude that “moving on” takes us to a better place. If the only reference for moral truths is society itself, then by definition the society will always assert that the current majority position is the moral one.

 

[Bradski]

As you rightly assert, majority opinion need not accord with “morality”. Similarly, we cannot conclude that “moving on” takes us to a better place. If the only reference for moral truths is society itself, then by definition the society will always assert that the current majority position is the moral one.

But we do learn from our mistakes. So no children up chimneys. No bear baiting. No public hanging. No gay prejudice. Well, we’re nearly there…

I good test is the ‘I can’t believe we used to do that’ comment. If it can generally be applied by any reasonable person to anything we used to do and no longer do, then I’d say that generally we have made progress.

‘I can’t believe we used to physically beat children’.
‘I can’t believe we used to let people drink and drive’.
‘I can’t believe that people would put on black face to entertain us’.
‘I can’t believe we used to keep slaves’.

The list goes on. And all reasonable people would have no problems in agreeing to each of them. As far as, for example, SSM goes, there are still a lot of people who would disagree. But I’m pretty certain that when my grandson is buying me a beer sometime in the far future and that subject comes up, most reasonable people will chip in and say: ‘You know, I can’t believe…’

 

[Rau]

But we do learn from our mistakes. So no children up chimneys. No bear baiting. No public hanging. No gay prejudice. Well, we’re nearly there…

I good test is the ‘I can’t believe we used to do that’ comment. If it can generally be applied by any reasonable person to anything we used to do and no longer do, then I’d say that generally we have made progress.

‘I can’t believe we used to physically beat children’.
‘I can’t believe we used to let people drink and drive’.
‘I can’t believe that people would put on black face to entertain us’.
‘I can’t believe we used to keep slaves’.

The list goes on. And all reasonable people would have no problems in agreeing to each of them. As far as, for example, SSM goes, there are still a lot of people who would disagree. But I’m pretty certain that when my grandson is buying me a beer sometime in the far future and that subject comes up, most reasonable people will chip in and say: ‘You know, I can’t believe…’

I’m sure that is often true. But I believe the points I made in my post remain valid.

By the way, in the context of deciding a point of morality, how is a “reasonable person” to be recognised?

 

[Peter_Plato]

But we do learn from our mistakes. So no children up chimneys. No bear baiting. No public hanging. No gay prejudice. Well, we’re nearly there…

I good test is the ‘I can’t believe we used to do that’ comment. If it can generally be applied by any reasonable person to anything we used to do and no longer do, then I’d say that generally we have made progress.

‘I can’t believe we used to physically beat children’.
‘I can’t believe we used to let people drink and drive’.
‘I can’t believe that people would put on black face to entertain us’.
‘I can’t believe we used to keep slaves’.

The list goes on.

‘I can’t believe we used to dismember babies in their mothers’ wombs and sell their organs for profit but were paradoxically traumatized by an innocuous swipe across the backside of an errant child.’
'I can’t believe we used to treat the awesome gift of creating new life with the same irreverent and salacious nonchalance that a drunken and debauched toad would.
‘I can’t believe we used to be furiously offended by minor slips of tongue or decorum but let the premeditated killing of 55 million babies pass without raising an eyebrow.’

Yes, the list goes on.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

‘I can’t believe we used to dismember babies in their mothers’ wombs and sell their organs for profit but were paradoxically traumatized by an innocuous swipe across the backside of an errant child.’
'I can’t believe we used to treat the awesome gift of creating new life with the same irreverent and salacious nonchalance that a drunken and debauched toad would.
‘I can’t believe we used to be furiously offended by minor slips of tongue or decorum but let the premeditated killing of 55 million babies pass without raising an eyebrow.’

Yes, the list goes on.

A fair comment for certain…

 

[frangiuliano115]

It’s not a case of being encouraged. This isn’t a point scoring exercise. And it’s not between different denominations either. Catholics interpret what the church says in different ways. I’m sure they would say that are each being led by God in that interpretation. And notwithstanding that, there are matters about which the church has made no comment, so Catholics base their interpretation on Natural Law or scripture and still come up with different viewpoints. And we’re back to Step One.

We don’t have to agree. But I would say that the majority of people were wrong before and it happens that the majority of people are right now. Very few people saw anything wrong with sending young children to sea or down mines before. Very few people saw anything wrong with using torture to get a confession. Very few people saw anything wrong in burning witches. Very few people saw anything wrong with mistreating animals. Or killing whales. Or treating women as second class citizens. Or emptying waste directly into rivers. Or treating the native population as non-citizens. Or Black-face variety programmes. Or beating schoolkids.

Thanks for the response.

Sorry, it was easier to just erase your post.

You know Bradski,

I’m not able to say things quickly like Rau, and Peter Plato and Jelrak TB. Maybe because I’m a girl, maybe because I’m a mother, maybe because I taught catechism and have heard much and have to reply with reason and practical examples and that’s what I’m doing here.

I did end my last post by saying that neither one of us is saying anything new and it’s because we have such a different view of things that it’s kind of like speaking to a martian!
This is true of every atheist I’ve ever spoken with. Sometimes it seems like they are really seeking, but after about 15 minutes I realize they’re just trying to convince me that I’m wrong. And I’m trying to convince them that they’re wrong wrong.

I’m in touch with another atheist on a different post and it’s the same story so that will come to an end too. He’s just not as nice as you are and is even insulting since most atheists think we are rather dumb. We don’t think atheists are dumb, we just think they can’t REASON! Now that’s rather funny.

So you’re right, this isn’t a point scoring exercise. It’s about where we’ll be spending eternity. Problem is, you don’t believe in an afterlife.

YOU, my dear Bradski, keep going back to Step One. Is it maybe YOU who cannot move on???

All those “very few people” of yours up there were acting in a social context. Were they chrisitan? Yes. We’ll they thought they were anyway. The witch burners called themselves christian, but we’d have to wonder what bible they were following and if they were really serving God or themselves and the power they sought to maintain. How wretched we are!

Which is why I like to follow God and not man.

You see, I’d say that 95% of your very few people up there were following society, not God. And thus all the mess. It’s kind of like communism. You know what they said. “Of course communism never worked, it was never practiced correctly.” We christians kind of feel the same way. You know what keeps getting in the way? Satan. But you don’t believe in him either.

Oh wait. You do speak of moving on. We’re better informed now, we’re better educated, we have access to more information. Yeah. That has really stopped torture, hasn’t it. Kids don’t torture little animals anymore, and no one is getting burned alive.

Know why? HUMAN NATURE HAS NOT CHANGED AND NEVER WILL. If we don’t understand this, we’re doomed - and I think we are. Because we can’t seem to change our nature. Think on that for 5 minutes. (Jesus spoke of changing our nature, BTW).

Let’s not talk about the quota of refugees. As you know, I live here where the problem is. Nice to talk about it, but we’re living it. And know what? It’s not being handled properly for all the reasons I’ve stated above. We are an imperfect race, which is why I cannot depend on Man for my answers! As far as gay people, gosh, I’m an older person. I can remember way back to the 50’s and have lived this whole story. Gosh. I’ve even had gay friends! Sorry ‘bout that. Cliche’ I mean. But I’ll never agree that they should be getting MARRIED. That would be a different thread too. Just quick: How does the govt have the RIGHT to change the meaning of marriage if they didn’t invent it???

You say:

**"There aren’t that many[reasonable people]. But you’ll recognise one when you see one. They won’t be dogmatic. They’ll listen to valid arguments. They’ll ignore personal preferences. They’ll discount hype and propaganda. They’ll discount invalid evidence. They’ll pass on arguments from authority. They’ll be willing to change their minds. "
**

Gosh. Is it YOU up there? Are you listening to me? Am I closed minded because I don’t agree with you? Are my arguments not valid? Am I not discounting propganda? Is God just propoganda? Is all my evidence invalid? Gosh. I must be so dumb and unreasonable.

You see, it always come down to me being stupid and you being smart and modern.
I like you Bradski, and I don’t even think you’re saying I’m stupid, but maybe in some vague and general way that all christians are.

Now, I really hesitate to quote scripture to atheists, but have I mentioned the below to you?

1 Corinthians 2:14 In fact, read all of chapter 2; which you might have done already and determined it’s all a lot of nonsense.

And you know who could know the mind of God?
Someone infused with the Holy Spirit OR someone who is trying to be in touch with the Holy Spirit. We’re just creatures, after all.

God bless you

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sorry, it was easier to just erase your post.

Your know Bradski,

I’m not able to say things quickly like Rau, and Peter Plato and Jelrak TB. Maybe because I’m a girl, maybe because I’m a mother, maybe because I taught catechism and have heard much and have to reply with reason and practical examples and that’s what I’m doing here.

I did end my last post by saying that neither one of us is saying anything new and it’s because we have such a different view of things that it’s kind of like speaking to a martian!
This is true of every atheist I’ve ever spoken with. Sometimes it seems like they are really seeking, but after about 15 minutes I realize they’re just trying to convince me that I’m wrong. And I’m trying to convince them that they’re wrong wrong.

I’m in touch with another atheist on a different post and it’s the same story so that will come to an end too. He’s just not as nice as you are and is even insulting since most atheists think we are rather dumb. We don’t think atheists are dumb, we just think they can’t REASON! Now that’s rather funny.

So you’re right, this isn’t a point scoring exercise. It’s about where we’ll be spending eternity. Problem is, you don’t believe in an afterlife.

YOU, my dear Bradski, keep going back to Step One. Is it maybe YOU who cannot move on???

All those “very few people” of yours up there were acting in social context. Were they chrisitan? Yes. The witch burners called themselves christian, but we’d have to wonder what bible they were following and if they were really serving God or themselves and the power they sought to maintain. How wretched we are!

Which is why I like to follow God and not man.

You see, I’d say that 95% of your very few people up there were following society, not God. And thus all the mess. It’s kind of like communism. You know what they said. “Of course communism never worked, it was never practiced correctly.” We christians kind of feel the same way. You know what keeps getting in the way? Satan. But you don’t believe in him either.

Oh wait. You do speak of moving on. We’re better informed now, we’re better educated, we have access to more information. Yeah. That has really stopped torture, hasn’t it. Kids don’t torture little animals anymore, and no one is getting burned alive.

Know why? HUMAN NATURE HAS NOT CHANGED AND NEVER WILL. If we don’t understand this, we’re doomed - adn I think we are. Because we can’t seem to change our nature. Think on that for 5 minutes.

Let’s not talk about the quota of refugees. As you know, I live here where the problem is. Nice to talk about it, but we’re living it. And know what? It’s not being handled properly for all the reasons I’ve stated above. We are an imperfect race, which is why I cannot depend on Man for my answers! As far as gay people, gosh I’m an older person. I can remember way back to the 50’s and have lived this whole story. Gosh. I’ve even had gay friends! Sorry ‘bout that. Cliche’ I mean. But I’ll never agree that they should be getting MARRIED. That would be a different thread too. Just quick: How does the govt have the RIGHT to change the meaning of marriage if they didn’t invent it???

You say:

**"There aren’t that many[reasonable people]. But you’ll recognise one when you see one. They won’t be dogmatic. They’ll listen to valid arguments. They’ll ignore personal preferences. They’ll discount hype and propaganda. They’ll discount invalid evidence. They’ll pass on arguments from authority. They’ll be willing to change their minds. "
**

Gosh. Is it YOU up there? Are you listening to me? Am I closed minded because I don’t agree with you? Are my arguments not valid? Am I not discounting propganda? Is God just propoganda? Is all my evidence invalid? Gosh. I must be so dumb and unreasonable.

You see, it always come down to me being stupid and you being smart and modern.
I like you Bradski, and I don’t even think you’re saying I’m stupid, but maybe in some vague and general way that all christians are.

Now, I really hesitate to quote scripture to atheists, but have I mentioned the below to you?

1 Corinthians 2:14 In fact, read all of chapter 2; which you might have done already and determined it’s all a lot of nonsense.

And you know who could know the mind of God?
Someone infused with the Holy Spirit OR someone who is trying to be in touch with the Holy Spirit. We’re just creatures, after all.

God bless you

For what it’s worth Fran I have been following your discussion and have found it quite interesting…certainly I understand Bradski’s point of view given that we are of a similar mindset (and I truly appreciate his civility given that so many atheists often appear quite willing to give the rest of us a bad name, which is why I enjoy his discussions over those of certain others), but I have also enjoyed the answers you have offered. They have been most thoughtful. Certainly if it is of any consolation, these types of discussions, though perhaps seemingly pointless to those directly so engaged, may often have a greater impact upon the observers rather than the participants…

Kind regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[frangiuliano115]

For what it’s worth Fran I have been following your discussion and have found it quite interesting…certainly I understand Bradski’s point of view given that we are of a similar mindset (and I truly appreciate his civility given that so many atheists often appear quite willing to give the rest of us a bad name, which is why I enjoy his discussions over those of certain others), but I have also enjoyed the answers you have offered. They have been most thoughtful. Certainly if it is of any consolation, these types of discussions, though perhaps seemingly pointless to those directly so engaged, may often have a greater impact upon the observers rather than the participants…

Kind regards,

Jelrak TB

So nice of you to take the time to comment.

Often I feel like I’m just wasting time.

You must be in a different time zone other than the U.S. too OR you’re another one of those who cannot sleep!

Thanks for your kindness. We could all certainly use more of that. And I know that not all atheists are the same!

God blesses all

 

[Bradski]

Yes, the list goes on.

Well, like I didn’t expect that response from someone. But that’s why I said ‘all reasonable people’. There are many reasonable people who think that a woman has the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. And many reasonable people who don’t.

But there may come a time when there will be a simple and 100% effective method of preventing conception when you have sex. Whether it be casual, intimate, married, single, potentially procreative or any other variation that you’d like to think of.

At that point, all reasonable people will say: ‘I can’t believe there wasn’t some method of avoiding having women having to make the decision to end a pregnancy as opposed to not getting pregnant in the first place’.

You won’t be one of them. You’ll still be complaining that sex is only meant to procreative and must not be used recreationally.

‘That was fantastic, dear’.
‘Yes, but I don’t know about you, but personally I wasn’t doing it just because it felt great’.
‘Oh no. I mean, I COULD get pregnant.’

Yeah, right…

 

[Bradski]

I’m sure that is often true. But I believe the points I made in my post remain valid.

By the way, in the context of deciding a point of morality, how is a “reasonable person” to be recognised?

I listed some characteristics earlier.

They won’t be dogmatic. They’ll listen to valid arguments. They’ll ignore personal preferences. They’ll discount hype and propaganda. They’ll discount invalid evidence. They’ll pass on arguments from authority. They’ll be willing to change their minds.

But please bear in mind I’m referring to an ideal, not specific people. As you would agree, none of us are perfect. If we can list what we believe would be the ideal, then it might be easier to recognise the less than ideal traits that we have ourselves.

In my case, I can be dogmatic. I do have personal preferences that are not easily overridden. I tend to put too much weight on arguments from authority if I already agree with said authority. But I will listen to valid arguments and I am willing to change my mind.

I’m sure you could add to the list.

 

[Bradski]

And Fran, no time for reply tonight. Off to favourite Italian and their pizza special. Just built a pizza oven so I may be demanding their recipes/suppliers/techniques tonight.

But ‘maybe because I’m a girl’ ? I hope that was said in jest…

 

[Rau]

…At that point, all reasonable people will say: ‘I can’t believe there wasn’t some method of avoiding having women having to make the decision to end a pregnancy as opposed to not getting pregnant in the first place’.

You state this as though it is “a given” that circumstances routinely arise where a decision to abort is a resonable course of action given pregnancy may occur.

That’s the problem with the discussion. The preconditions defined (eg. for a “reasonable person”) are always such as to be consistent with what’s required to defend the argument. For the atheist, those preconditions can be guaranteed to not encompass a deity, and thus morality is purely a product of man. The believer adopts the reverse. It’s absolutely reasonable to be dogmatic if that is to follow the requirements of the deity! And it is entirely unreasonable to require the believer to set aside that consideration in gauging morality.

The atheist takes the view that to believe in a law-giving deity is itself unreasonable. The believer and the atheist start from fundamentally different premises. This must severely limit the productiveness of discussion on some subjects.

 

[Rhubarb]

And that age-old problem has a fundamental flaw in that is assumes that God cannot bring greater good out of an evil, which He can.

Bringing a greater good out of an evil seems to run afoul of omni-benevolence - being all good. Let me craft an analogy. Consider a ‘good’ a step forward. And an evil a ‘step back’. Bringing a greater good out of an evil would then be like taking one step back and three steps forward. Which is the same as taking two steps forward. (In terms of forward distance, or, the amount of good) Using evil to bring about good doesn’t seem like something a being who is necessarily ALL-good can do, as, bringing about a greater good without the use of evil (seems to be) more good. Or perhaps God isn’t all-powerful, and needs the evil to bring it about, or, God isn’t all-knowing and doesn’t know how to bring about the good without the evil. These are the horns of the problem of evil. The three attributes of God don’t seem to jive with the existence of evil. The assumption isn’t that God can’t bring about a greater good from an evil. It’s that it seems a contradiction given God being all-good and all-powerful.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, like I didn’t expect that response from someone. But that’s why I said ‘all reasonable people’. There are many reasonable people who think that a woman has the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. And many reasonable people who don’t.

But there may come a time when there will be a simple and 100% effective method of preventing conception when you have sex. Whether it be casual, intimate, married, single, potentially procreative or any other variation that you’d like to think of.

At that point, all reasonable people will say: ‘I can’t believe there wasn’t some method of avoiding having women having to make the decision to end a pregnancy as opposed to not getting pregnant in the first place’.

You won’t be one of them. You’ll still be complaining that sex is only meant to procreative and must not be used recreationally.

‘That was fantastic, dear’.
‘Yes, but I don’t know about you, but personally I wasn’t doing it just because it felt great’.
‘Oh no. I mean, I COULD get pregnant.’

Yeah, right…

Well, no, Bradski. It isn’t that I am complaining that sex is used recreationally, so much as when weighing the option of choosing to have sex for pleasure, some see it as a legitimate moral option to choose to have sex even when it means dismembering or otherwise killing a preborn child as a consequence of that “recreation.”

What you seem to be claiming is that the value of having sex for recreation as a moral option for you is a “no brainier” in that it ALWAYS trumps what may end up to be the killing of another human being. Your position makes that other human life morally inconsequential, in principle, as compared to mere having pleasure.

 

[frangiuliano115]

And Fran, no time for reply tonight. Off to favourite Italian and their pizza special. Just built a pizza oven so I may be demanding their recipes/suppliers/techniques tonight.

But ‘maybe because I’m a girl’ ? I hope that was said in jest…

Of course. I just think that females tend to talk more.

When I was 16 I wanted to be a woman.

Now I’m … and I want to be a girl!

Buon Appetito!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Bringing a greater good out of an evil seems to run afoul of omni-benevolence - being all good. Let me craft an analogy. Consider a ‘good’ a step forward. And an evil a ‘step back’. Bringing a greater good out of an evil would then be like taking one step back and three steps forward. Which is the same as taking two steps forward. (In terms of forward distance, or, the amount of good) Using evil to bring about good doesn’t seem like something a being who is necessarily ALL-good can do, as, bringing about a greater good without the use of evil (seems to be) more good. Or perhaps God isn’t all-powerful, and needs the evil to bring it about, or, God isn’t all-knowing and doesn’t know how to bring about the good without the evil. These are the horns of the problem of evil. The three attributes of God don’t seem to jive with the existence of evil. The assumption isn’t that God can’t bring about a greater good from an evil. It’s that it seems a contradiction given God being all-good and all-powerful.

You’ve hit on a fundamental problem in christianity. BTW: The 3 omnis are:
omnipresent
omnipotent
omniscent

Please don’t add a 4th, omni-benevolent. We’re having enough problems with 3!

So you’re right about what you say. But this cannot be discussed with an atheist, can it? You don’t even believe God exists so why concern yourself with where evil comes from?

In fact, I’d like to know your answer to that age-old problem. Maybe it’s just the absence of good? Hmmmm. I don’t think so.

BTW, I’ll tell you a little secret. There is no answer! Many brains more intelligent than mine have tried to explain it; Thomas Acquinas, Augustine. But they just can’t seem to get to the root of the problem, no matter how long their dissertation is. So, yes, it’s a problem. But we christians don’t worry it about all the time. We must be really silly!

Oh. And when we say that God could bring some good out of evil - I doubt a non-christian could even begin to understand that one. The exact wording is: God works all things for the good… it’s in the bible. No use getting into it.

I’m going to have a problem getting to that cinema this evening - but I’m going anyway!

God bless
p.s. I meant it about your explanation for “evil”.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Rhubard, you’re agnositc. So you’re still searching.
Hope you make it!
Don’t look for explanations.
Look for God
while He may be found.

 

[zz912]

Bringing a greater good out of an evil seems to run afoul of omni-benevolence - being all good. Let me craft an analogy. Consider a ‘good’ a step forward. And an evil a ‘step back’. Bringing a greater good out of an evil would then be like taking one step back and three steps forward. Which is the same as taking two steps forward. (In terms of forward distance, or, the amount of good) Using evil to bring about good doesn’t seem like something a being who is necessarily ALL-good can do, as, bringing about a greater good without the use of evil (seems to be) more good. Or perhaps God isn’t all-powerful, and needs the evil to bring it about, or, God isn’t all-knowing and doesn’t know how to bring about the good without the evil. These are the horns of the problem of evil. The three attributes of God don’t seem to jive with the existence of evil. The assumption isn’t that God can’t bring about a greater good from an evil. It’s that it seems a contradiction given God being all-good and all-powerful.

You can be all-good, and still allow another person/entity to choose evil because you have given them free will, and still be all-good. There is no contradiction in this.