The only worth we have at all comes from God. The only “human dignity” that we have, we have because alone in creation we are called to communion with God as his children.
Possibly. I have not yet attained to the epoch of computer software design where I can consistently sustain zero defects in my design of firmware that controls such devices. And it would be just ironic if I had to find myself on the receiving end of one of my own creations at the unfortunate time that a latent computer bug decided to manifest itself to me at the instant I needed a 0% error rate. I shriek at imaging the ease that a simple table index error could initiate prostrate surgery when the operator had equipped the robotic implements with a colonoscopy fitting.
That is very true! Now, let’s analyze it and try to find the reason for it.
And how do you know that? Did you ever experience “true” happiness?
In the context of The Infinite where there is no past, present or future there is only the infinity of “now”. In the context of eternity there is no Euthyphro dilemma or for that matter any paradox. These are human artifacts that arise when we try to apply principals of reason and logic across disjoint domains - human and Divine. Again, the fact that a paradox or a delimma exists in the time-space dimension of a Created universe just goes to prove that the Creator was not subject to them (or can easily operate with them) and that we that exist in this moment are inferior beings and ill equipped to deal with them. We can only emulate and approximate - we can not create. The irrational number π, the ratio of any circle’s circumference to its diameter can not be represented perfectly by a fractional number - yet the ratio exists perfectly in nature. The delimma or paradox only manifests itself by humankind trying to force a perfectly natural and ubiquitous thing to conform to an arbitrary system of metrics and characterization. But the Circle (or Sphere) is just happy as can be being a “circle” in nature and is oblivious to man’s attempts to characterize it in terms that humans can understand. Moral of the story - don’t try to pigeon hole God to conform to an arbitrary subordinate standard of compliance that is limited by its capacity to even grasp a minor dimension of Him.
God is Being. God is the source of all life. You can’t logically turn away from life and still enjoy life.
Nonsense. Atheists go on citing the Euthyphro dilemma, not noticing that post-Platonic theists do not have the Euthyphro dilemma, because we identify God with the Form of the Good.
God is the source of all life. So if God chooses to withdraw life from us, there is nothing evil in that. You are not the source of life for other humans (not even for your own children). So you do not have the right to kill them, except perhaps under extremely limited circumstances. This is not a matter of refusing to apply absolute morality to God.
You really have talked to some very dumb and unreasonable Christians, haven’t you?
That is just an unsubstantiated assumption. I do not believe in any kind of God, and yet I enjoy life. I enjoy it very much.
Yes! And major thank you! This is exactly what I keep saying. When I use the word “God” it is just an abbreviation for: “an alleged being with certain alleged attributes, who may or may not exist”.
Again, YES! I reject the presented concept of God, because I find this concept self-contradictory and nonsensical.
How could I “reject” someone whose very existence is not something I believe in?
Oh, no. That is just a cop-out. It is accepting the second “horn” of the dilemma by stating that whatever God does is “good”. You cannot “redefine” good as “something that God does” because that will make God’s goodness a “whim”.
Wrong. It is quite all right NOT to create someone. But to create, and THEN take that life away is undefensible.
Do you accept the Flood as a historical event?
I cannot comment on that. You can ask something like that, but the forum rules do not allow me to agree. But I can state that many of those people are active posters here on these boards. If I had a dollar for every time when I was shouted at, I would be quite well off…
Yes, I do understand that and I agree with you. Moreover, many of those posts were not written in all capital letters.Just as an aside, there are some of us ‘oldsters’ on here who learned to ‘type’ when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Back in the day, both with the keyboard and those quaint instruments, pen and paper, to write in “capitalized letters” was a way of making an emphasis and was emphatically not considered ‘shouting’. To this day my dear sweet mother who turns 80 next year, a more proper lady you will never find, writes to me in her Palmer penmanship with virtually every other word written in all caps’. It’s her style, our family style in fact. . .
Then came the Internet and ‘netiquette’ which in many ways is very different from ye olde Emily Post etiquette. Some of us still, when tired, hurried, or forgetful (especially the last) will out of habit ‘capitalize’ as we had spent 30, 40, 50 years or more writing and typing in that style with never a word of complaint or being told it was ‘shouting’ or wrong. So we forget.
Therefore, if you have been treated to the occasional post where a poster capitalizes here and there–please give them the benefit of the doubt. In many cases they were not ‘shouting’. They were making an emphasis in the ‘old way’. A simple PM to them of “did you realize I took that all caps word or phrase as shouting at me” would result in an apology I’m sure, without the need to either humiliate the poster in front of all the other posters, or to play the ‘martyr card’ of 'somebody is shouting at me."
Of course, some do shout. Deliberately. But most of us don’t. . .and our ‘caps’ are merely antiquated ‘hangers on’ from a more civilized and less acrimonious and litiginous past.
Not believing in = rejecting. You reject the notion of the existance of God. Nothing implied in that characterization of your position, is there?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist).I reject the concept of God, not God itself. That is not the same.Not believing in = rejecting. You reject the notion of the existance of God. Nothing implied in that characterization of your position, is there?
Why would you “reject” that not believing in is the same as rejecting?
Can you 'splain that? I’m not sure I understand how that can be…unless you accept that God may exist, just not as how humans have thus far conceptualized him.
There is nothing to explain, because you grasped my position perfectly.
Sure, it is possible that an incredibly “high” being exists (or many of them). As long as the purported attributes are not mutually exclusive, this concept is perfectly valid and acceptable. Only when the attributes become nonsensical or self-contradictory can I say - with certainty - that this concept is unacceptable. Also if the logical corollaries of these attributes (as reflected by our observable existence) cannot be reconciled by our experiences, then I rationally reject this idea.
That would be a fair representation, with the caveat that I don’t believe in Tash either. Nevertheless, due to my upbringing I strive to be a good person. Sure, I can fail. Based upon the observations of the many Christians around us (I live in the Bible Belt) I am doing pretty decently. But that behavior is based upon the ethical standards instilled in me by my parents.
OK. I’m doing better than I thought.There is nothing to explain, because you grasped my position perfectly.
