S
severntofall
Guest
Ok, you tell me. Where did the christian concept of eternal damnation originate?Are you saying that this is proof that Jesus invented eternal damnation? No! There is simply no logic in it.
Ok, you tell me. Where did the christian concept of eternal damnation originate?Are you saying that this is proof that Jesus invented eternal damnation? No! There is simply no logic in it.
To relate that to the standard of Christ is what is wild imagination. How do you think is this related to “the standard of Christ”? Christ is perfectly pro-life!
Is jesus not the same god who ordered this inhumane slaughter (hint: if you answer no then you are a heretic)?
No, your not!Hello everyone, I’m new to these forums. I don’t subscribe to any established religion, though I do have vague religious beliefs. I don’t believe that religion is a basis for ethical principles, though, so I’ll try my best to fit in here, despite the differences.
Now, to the question. Typically, I will hear three responses from Christians in this order (I know; predictable, right?). I’ll try to outline the situation:
Am I right in my analysis? Are there additional proposals or objections?
- First, the typical Christian will say that it is only fitting that God be the moral authority because he did, after all, create all those subject to it. This seems to me to be evidently absurd. God should be able to demand anything of us just because he created us? What of our happiness or suffering? People tell me “You should be grateful. You want to live, right? He gave you that life.” Well, that’s the problem: I want to live because I’m alive. He didn’t fulfill a being’s interests by creating them. Instead, he created a being with a desire (of living) that will eventually fail to be satisfied, not even counting the living’s other interests.
- When the same person sees that argument failing, weakening, or simply not appealing to the opponent, they will fall back on God’s omniscience. It only makes sense that God set the rules, they say, because he knows everything, and thus can predict/foresee the exact results of such rules. This argument is weaker than the first. We see its weakness when we contrast it with Hume’s proposal of the is-ought gap, which claims that, since the properties of goodness and badness don’t seem to be natural (as compared to such adjectives used as fine sand or gnarled wood), and because they only seem to exist in one’s opinion of concrete items/circumstances, all sense of morality is subjective, or emotion-based. Moral knowledge is impossible. While I must agree that, if God can be proven to know more than any being (I don’t know how one can use inferior intelligence to discover a superior intelligence), and he shares our interests, he should be our moral authority. This is only true, of course, if God shares our interests, which, given that he is made out to be such an alien being, may be a bit of an ambitious assumption. In short, God has the infallible means to get whatever he wants, and we ought to follow him so long as our wants and his match. But just by flipping through the Bible, I doubt that’s the case.
- Lastly, and in desperation, the Christian proponent makes the ironically feeble claim that, because God is the most powerful (whatever you take that to mean), he should be the moral authority. I don’t think I even have to point out why this is not only a ridiculously unconvincing argument, but also a dangerous mindset. This is a “might makes right” philosophy that not only divides God and creatures, but society as well (because it asserts that power means everything). To make this post complete, I must evoke Hitler for a moment. Notice that he fit the bill in both arguments (2) and (3), but we wouldn’t consider him to have the moral high ground over almost anyone.
God does not demand just anything from us. He demands what would be good for us. Who would know best what would be best for us if not he who made us - who knew everything about us - our temperaments, characteristics, nature etc.? Just a simple analogy, don’t we consult the manufacturer first if we want to use some gadget appropriately? Similarly, who should we consult if we want to know how man can live his life well?
- First, the typical Christian will say that it is only fitting that God be the moral authority because he did, after all, create all those subject to it. This seems to me to be evidently absurd. God should be able to demand anything of us just because he created us? What of our happiness or suffering? People tell me “You should be grateful. You want to live, right? He gave you that life.” Well, that’s the problem: I want to live because I’m alive. He didn’t fulfill a being’s interests by creating them. Instead, he created a being with a desire (of living) that will eventually fail to be satisfied, not even counting the living’s other interests.
I don’t know where. But sure, Jesus did not invent it. Eternal damnation is what we call hell. And hell was already recognized even before Jesus was born. Here,Ok, you tell me. Where did the christian concept of eternal damnation originate?
No. Man’s dominion did not include the power to make own moral laws according as he likesDoes having dominion over the earth not include moral dominion?
I think so therefore man, not God is to be the authority here. God proclaimed it.
Don’t mess with God’s will.
Regards
DL
Jesus ordered human slaughter? This must be another wild imagination. There may be slaughters in history, but certainly Jesus did not order them.Is jesus not the same god who ordered this inhumane slaughter (hint: if you answer no then you are a heretic)?
But what is meant here by “dominion?” Does it mean abandoning man to control creation at whim? Obviously, this is not the case, as in the subsequent books of the Bible, we see God intervening to lay down a set of commands for the people.Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
This tells me that man is to rule here. Not God not Satan. Man.
Our first God or ruler was then a man and at end times, it will be a man again that will be God.
Regards
DL
Ok, perhaps you need an update of christian theology. Jesus, according to YOUR beliefs, is god and has been god since…well forever. There were slaughters described in the OT that god ordered…jesus is god.Jesus ordered human slaughter? This must be another wild imagination. There may be slaughters in history, but certainly Jesus did not order them.
What do you know about heretics? As far as I know, the way to determine who is a heretic is not in the way you presented here. You would be judging a person as heretic without fair trial.
Let us see what slaughter in the OT you are referring to.Ok, perhaps you need an update of christian theology. Jesus, according to YOUR beliefs, is god and has been god since…well forever. There were slaughters described in the OT that god ordered…jesus is god.
As far as the hertic comment, believing that Jesus is not god is a christian heresy. Not that I should talk, I don’t believe that god’s is god.
Have you ever read the OT? I quote just one of them earlier in this thread.Let us see what slaughter in the OT you are referring to.
Joshua 5:20, 24-27? Nothing there says that God ordered slaughter.Have you ever read the OT? I quote just one of them earlier in this thread.
This quote confirms my point. Are we not living creature that moves on the ground?No. Man’s dominion did not include the power to make own moral laws according as he likes
Here,
Genesis 1:28 (New International Version)
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:28
Are you saying that Jesus/God did not initiate Noah’s genocidal flood?Jesus ordered human slaughter? This must be another wild imagination. There may be slaughters in history, but certainly Jesus did not order them.
What do you know about heretics? As far as I know, the way to determine who is a heretic is not in the way you presented here. You would be judging a person as heretic without fair trial.
You are slightly confused but can be saved.But what is meant here by “dominion?” Does it mean abandoning man to control creation at whim? Obviously, this is not the case, as in the subsequent books of the Bible, we see God intervening to lay down a set of commands for the people.
Who assigned man to have dominion over the earth? It is God. By appealing to God’s command that man be the steward of creation, you agree that God is the ultimate authority, not man. Man has authority insofar as it is given by God to him.
This given authority means that man is in-charge of creation, not in an absolute manner, but to rule in accordance with God. He gave it with an accompanying responsibility. It’s like electing a president. We vote a candidate in order that he may rule the country in accordance with good governance. It is possible though for that candidate not to rule it well.
I don’t think it’s the most pressing question in everyone’s life (it’s not going to make or break one of my decisions). But I think knowing what people in general want is a persistent question that is important to me.Yes. I think that knowing what God wants is critically important simply because this is the most pressing question in our day-to-day life. This is somewhat axiomic, but I am sure you would agree with me that this is a valid observation.
I’m a bit slow on the concept of God, so you’ll have to forgive me. I think I can agree with why God must be simple if he is infinite, but why must he be infinite?Goodness is a little more tricky. The link above explains why God must be completely simple (not having any composition of different things). “Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts”
You’re making goodness an objective, observable quality. Do you really think that we can say that God is good in the same way that we can say a basketball player is 7 feet tall? The subjective “sense” you speak of is required. You include the fruits of this “sense” as one of your premises in your logical arguments. Someone else could just as easily have a different result come from their sense and also have a logical argument. You can’t just ignore the fact that all your ethical conclusions sprout from emotions simply because you deem them unreliable. That’s like saying that you didn’t have parents because their advice was unreliable. Like it or not, you share their DNA, just as ethical conclusions share the subjectivity of their parent: emotions.This means that God cannot be partly good and partly bad, or any similar combination. God needs to be either completely good or completely bad. I believe that God is completely good because I have observed much good and beauty in the world, and I think that goodness is the most probable explanation. God creating the world out of selfless love (since He needs nothing) seems more plausible to me than God creating the world out of pure hatred.
Yes. I have to admit that I’m confused about why God must have infinite qualities.Do you want me to go into the existence of God?
Thanks. The week before spring break is always a killer.Hope you feel better!
And the devil could do worse?
…or the slaughter of all that lived in the city of Jericho (man, woman, child and animal). No…eternally torturing those who fail to worship him properly must be it.
You mean the inventor of the concept of eternal torture? Yes, if that’s not love then I’m not sure what is.
You are officially my hero.Have you ever read the OT? I quote just one of them earlier in this thread.
Your Lord ordered numerous merciless slaughters. The bold verses are the best examples of god’s love.Joshua 5:20, 24-27? Nothing there says that God ordered slaughter.
The question of eternal salvation or damnation is ultimately going to be of utmost importance in our day-to-day decisions.I don’t think it’s the most pressing question in everyone’s life (it’s not going to make or break one of my decisions). But I think knowing what people in general want is a persistent question that is important to me.
"Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing. "I’m a bit slow on the concept of God, so you’ll have to forgive me. I think I can agree with why God must be simple if he is infinite, but why must he be infinite?
Judgment calls are not necessarily based on emotions. When I make the judgment call that I will believe God is good, I use reason to examine my experiences. Experiences are not synonymous with chemical emotions.You’re making goodness an objective, observable quality. Do you really think that we can say that God is good in the same way that we can say a basketball player is 7 feet tall? The subjective “sense” you speak of is required. You include the fruits of this “sense” as one of your premises in your logical arguments. Someone else could just as easily have a different result come from their sense and also have a logical argument. You can’t just ignore the fact that all your ethical conclusions sprout from emotions simply because you deem them unreliable. That’s like saying that you didn’t have parents because their advice was unreliable. Like it or not, you share their DNA, just as ethical conclusions share the subjectivity of their parent: emotions.