The recurring question without an answer

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

If all the parts are the words of God then you cant use some of them. You have to choose which ones to use. You have to say that.

Why? Why do I have to say “choose parts but not the whole”?

The church doesnt teach everything in the bible.

It doesn’t? How do you reach that conclusion?

But georgias said he was using Jesus arguments against the person who was an Atheist. Then he changed that and said he was using the bible because its the word of God. Then he changed that again and said he was using the church.

Jesus’ arguments are the Word of God, and they are reflected in the teachings of the Church! There’s no inconsistency there!

You have to choose parts because you cant use some of it for arguments. You cant say just use the bible. Because in the bible there are things that are wrong like stoning people. So you cant use that. And Jesus didnt teach that. He stopped people from doing it so the bible said one thing and he said another. And the church doesnt teach it either and you know that already so how can you ask me how i know that??

And you ignored the bit about the golden rule again. You were wrong and i showed you what the pope said not some person on wikipedia. The pope actually said it was the golden rule so unless you think the pope is wrong then you were wrong. And you agreed that if you were wrong then you should apologise.

 

[Gorgias]

You have to choose parts because you cant use some of it for arguments. You cant say just use the bible. Because in the bible there are things that are wrong like stoning people. So you cant use that.

I can use it as an example of how people get God’s commandments wrong, or how people can try to be good but still sin.

If you’re asking whether I use the whole Bible as examples of people doing the right thing, then the answer is “of course not!” Still, though, it’s all the Word of God and “useful for teaching”.

And you ignored the bit about the golden rule again.

Umm… no I didn’t.

You were wrong and i showed you what the pope said

OK – you quoted the pope’s speech to Congress. And, in it, he quotes the golden rule. Yet, “treat others as you wish to be treated” isn’t exactly the same as “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” The former is a recommendation on how to act; the latter is a recommendation on how to feel. There’s a subtle – but real! – distinction there!

 

[Annie]

But georgias said he was using Jesus arguments against the person who was an Atheist. Then he changed that and said he was using the bible because its the word of God. Then he changed that again and said he was using the church.

Jesus, the Church, and the Bible all teach the same thing. The Church is the Body of Jesus; the Bible si the Word of God, ie, Jesus.

But Jesus and the church dont use killing people as an argument.

Do I let my 6-year-old drive? No. I forbid him to drive. If I caught him driving, I would ground him for weeks.

Now, when he turns 16 and gets a permit, will I react in the same way? No, of course not.

In this way of looking at it, God was teaching the Israelites so they could teach others after the Messiah came.

Or, the Israelites were a relatively small band of people surrounded by enemies. Rebellion against God was extremely dangerous for them, because it weakened God’s protection in the same way that today, someone spying for an enemy nation is weakening his own nation’s protection.

The fact that God taught one group of people in one situation one thing does not mean He cannot teach a different group of people in a different situation a different thing.

It says you can stone a woman to death as well which any one will say is wrong.

I appreciate your defense of women

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

You have to choose parts because you cant use some of it for arguments. You cant say just use the bible. Because in the bible there are things that are wrong like stoning people. So you cant use that.

I can use it as an example of how people get God’s commandments wrong, or how people can try to be good but still sin.

If you’re asking whether I use the whole Bible as examples of people doing the right thing, then the answer is “of course not!” Still, though, it’s all the Word of God and “useful for teaching”.

And you ignored the bit about the golden rule again.

Umm… no I didn’t.

You were wrong and i showed you what the pope said

OK – you quoted the pope’s speech to Congress. And, in it, he quotes the golden rule. Yet, “treat others as you wish to be treated” isn’t exactly the same as “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” The former is a recommendation on how to act; the latter is a recommendation on how to feel. There’s a subtle – but real! – distinction there!

So youve gone from using good arguments from Jesus to use the bible to use the church and now use the bible again but only to show the bad bits.

And what Jesus said about neighbours wasnt about how you feel. It was a commandment. And commandments are telling you how to act. Like do not kill and do not steal.

The apostle St. Paul reminds us of this: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

That bit about st. paul is what the catholic church teaches. I copied it. You can look it up. It says its a commandment. Just like treat others as you want to be treated. So you are wrong again. And you agreed that people should apologise if they know they said something wrong. And now everyone can see your wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

And what Jesus said about neighbours wasnt about how you feel. It was a commandment. And commandments are telling you how to act. Like do not kill and do not steal.

There’s also “do not covet”, which is talking about what you want, not “how to act.” That’s more “feeling” than “action”, wouldn’t you say?

That bit about st. paul is what the catholic church teaches. I copied it. You can look it up. It says its a commandment.

Notice that – just as I’ve said – this goes much farther than “treat others as you would like to be treated.” This isn’t merely the “golden rule”, as you’ve suggested – now you’re in the territory of the two great commandments!

And now everyone can see your wrong.

Is that what this is about? Proving that I’m wrong?

 

[Barnesy]

The fact that God taught one group of people in one situation one thing does not mean He cannot teach a different group of people in a different situation a different thing.

Barnesy:

It says you can stone a woman to death as well which any one will say is wrong.

I appreciate your defense of women

But some one can say the same thing to you back. If you say God says you cant do this then they can say that it doesnt mean the same thing about them. You cant say that God says this is bad for one person but its ok for another person. Its either bad or it isnt. It cant be both.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

And what Jesus said about neighbours wasnt about how you feel. It was a commandment. And commandments are telling you how to act. Like do not kill and do not steal.

There’s also “do not covet”, which is talking about what you want, not “how to act.” That’s more “feeling” than “action”, wouldn’t you say?

That bit about st. paul is what the catholic church teaches. I copied it. You can look it up. It says its a commandment.

Notice that – just as I’ve said – this goes much farther than “treat others as you would like to be treated.” This isn’t merely the “golden rule”, as you’ve suggested – now you’re in the territory of the two great commandments!

And now everyone can see your wrong.

Is that what this is about? Proving that I’m wrong?

Do not covet is a command. It says do not. Do not steal and do not kill and do not covet. They are all commamds. And im not trying to prove you wrong. Its not me thats saying the wrong things. Im not tricking you. You said it wasnt the golden rule because it was about feelings and not about commands and ive shown you that the church says its commands.

If you say something wrong to me and you keep saying it then what am i supposed to do?? If i dont say some thing then people who read this will think i dont care if people say wrong things. If you show me that im wrong then i will admit it. Its the right thing to do.

Its up to you what you want to do.

 

[Gorgias]

You said it wasnt the golden rule because it was about feelings and not about commands and ive shown you that the church says its commands.

If you say so. Sure looks like you quoted me the Second Great Commandment, though, and not the ‘golden rule.’

2nd great commandment (Matthew 22:34-40):

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Golden Rule (Luke 6:31):

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

And again Matthew 7:12 –

Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.

Now let’s look at your claim that Jesus was merely repeating somebody else’s earlier teaching. In Luke 6, Jesus goes beyond a mere assertion of the golden rule – He has his own teaching, which goes well beyond:

To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.

Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

See? It’s not just “do unto others” – it’s also “repay evil with good.” This is a teaching that exceeds the ‘golden rule’! The golden rule would merely require you to not do evil to people. Jesus’ teaching, on the other hand, asks you act charitably to those who would harm you. See the difference?

If you say something wrong to me and you keep saying it then what am i supposed to do??

Hmm… if I keep saying “I think you’re mistaken”, then maybe consider the possibility that you’re mistaken?

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

You said it wasnt the golden rule because it was about feelings and not about commands and ive shown you that the church says its commands.

If you say so.

I dont say so. The catholic church says your wrong. They say so.

And turn the other cheek is something buddha taught a long time before Jesus. He said : “If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.”

So if you think that Jesus was the first to say that as well then your wrong again. It was somebody elses teaching. @rossum knows lots about buddhism. He will tell you the same.

 

[Annie]

No, some things can be bad or not bad in different situations.

But in this case, it is more whether God expects an immediate punishment for someone or not.

For example, another bad act that was punishable by stoning in the Old Testament was adultery. We no longer punish people by stoning them if they commit adultery, but it is still a very bad thing to do, right?

In the same way, if someone does not honor the Sabbath today, we do not stone them, but it is still a bad thing to do.

 

[Gorgias]

And turn the other cheek is something buddha taught a long time before Jesus. He said : “If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.”

Buddha thought that this world is an illusion. Therefore, if someone ‘hurts’ you, ignore it; it’s not real.

That’s very different than what Jesus teaches.

 

[Spaten]

That something is not in conflict with God doesn’t make it caused by God, right?

Wrong. Since there is nothing that could exist against God’s will, your argument is incorrect. Everything that happens is either the result of God’s direct will, or permissive will. Starting from diseases, across the Holocaust and ending with all the misery we can either experience in ourselves, or see in others.

That is the result of God’s absolute sovereignty and unsurpassed power. Nothing can happen if God expressly does NOT want it.

That would be an invalid conclusion, especially if it only proceeds from something that you’re surmising (aside from any evidence for or against the supposition!).

Why so? Read my previous remark. If we do not have direct evidence for something, we use the indirect evidence.

Other than the existence of the world itself. And the Savior whom God sent to the world. Other than that… yeah, nothing.

The world’s existence is not a witness for God’s love and caring. Neither is the savior. To exist is not superior to non-existence.

 

[Gorgias]

Since there is nothing that could exist against God’s will, your argument is incorrect.

That’s an invalid premise. God allows for secondary causation, and therefore, things that God would not will Himself can exist.

Nothing can happen if God expressly does NOT want it.

Again… no. God expressly wills that we humans have free will. What we do with it is imputed to us, as moral actors.

Now… Calvin would disagree with that stance… but he’s not a member of the magisterium.

The world’s existence is not a witness for God’s love and caring. Neither is the savior. To exist is not superior to non-existence.

Actually, that’s precisely the argument that medieval philosophers resolved, centuries ago: existence is better than non-existence.

 

[Barnesy]

No, some things can be bad or not bad in different situations.

But adultery hasnt changed. It still means the same thing now as when it happened in the bible. But if killing someone for it is wrong now then it should be wrong then. Jesus said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone and he knew everybody had sinnned. Its the punishment that changed. And Jesus thought the punishment was wrong.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

And turn the other cheek is something buddha taught a long time before Jesus. He said : “If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.”

Buddha thought that this world is an illusion. Therefore, if someone ‘hurts’ you, ignore it; it’s not real.

You keep saying things that are very wrong.

“In Buddha’s enlightenment he realized that one must face reality.”

You should read more about Buddhism. If you dont then youll keep making mistakes. You can read more about it here.
https://pariyatti.org/Free-Resources/Articles-and-Excerpts/Buddhas-Path-is-to-Experience-Reality

 

[Gorgias]

You keep saying things that are very wrong.

“In Buddha’s enlightenment he realized that one must face reality.”

You should read more about Buddhism. If you dont then youll keep making mistakes. You can read more about it here.

Keep reading the very document you cited to me:

The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration.

So… the universe is an illusion.

When one experiences the truth of nibbana-a stage beyond the entire sensorium-all the six sense organs stop working. There can’t be any contact with objects outside, so sensation ceases. At this stage there is freedom from all suffering.

The goal of Buddhism is to recognize that suffering is not real because the sensations that give rise to it are not real. So – expose the illusion, and slough off the effects of the illusion.

C’mon, Barnesy… why do you keep saying that I’m wrong, when you yourself produce the evidence that what I’m saying is correct?

 

[Lys]

Actually, that’s precisely the argument that medieval philosophers resolved, centuries ago: existence is better than non-existence

Sorry, I am a latecomer, but curious. How could a philosopher resolve any question about the physical reality? And what kind of reasoning did they use in this particular instance? What does “better” mean?

 

[Gorgias]

How could a philosopher resolve any question about the physical reality? And what kind of reasoning did they use in this particular instance? What does “better” mean?

IIRC, it was St Anselm that most famously made this argument among the medieval philosophers, in the course of his discussion of his ontological proof of God’s existence.

So, David Benatar notwithstanding, one can make the case that some thing is always better than a null thing.

 

[Lys]

IIRC, it was St Anselm that most famously made this argument among the medieval philosophers, in the course of his discussion of his ontological proof of God’s existence.

Would that be the concept of the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB)? I only saw a “declaration” that actual existence is superior to mere conceptual existence. There was no argument presented. And even if there were, “superior” does not imply “better”. That is why I am interested in the usage of “better”.

In what way is “leprosy” better than the lack of leprosy? Why is the existence of “Jupiter” better than a modified Solar System, without Jupiter?

So, David Benatar notwithstanding, one can make the case that some thing is always better than a null thing.

How would that argument go? You used the word “resolved”, which indicates a rational and logical argument, which can only be discarded at the penalty of irrationality. (By the way the “null” thing is just an abstraction, which cannot have an ontological existence.)

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

You keep saying things that are very wrong.

“In Buddha’s enlightenment he realized that one must face reality.”

You should read more about Buddhism. If you dont then youll keep making mistakes. You can read more about it here.

Keep reading the very document you cited to me:

The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration.

So… the universe is an illusion.

When one experiences the truth of nibbana-a stage beyond the entire sensorium-all the six sense organs stop working. There can’t be any contact with objects outside, so sensation ceases. At this stage there is freedom from all suffering.

The goal of Buddhism is to recognize that suffering is not real because the sensations that give rise to it are not real. So – expose the illusion, and slough off the effects of the illusion.

C’mon, Barnesy… why do you keep saying that I’m wrong, when you yourself produce the evidence that what I’m saying is correct?

When you talk all you want to do is show your right. When you read all you see is what you want to see. You did not read the stuff about Bhuddism to learn anything. You only looked for something you could use to win. Thats all you want to do is win. To beat people in arguments. You dont want to listen and when you do you dont hear. I didnt come here to argue but thats why you are here i think. Now maybe you can report me so Ill get banned.