Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

No, it doesn't.

yes it does

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

It doesn't imply that either.

yes it does

in both of the above cases you merely make a statement without showing why you are correct. my point is, i don't care about the terminology. i'm asking again for someone to show how God is unjust for allowing suffering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Nonsense. You -- conveniently -- build those assumptions into your model, but there is nothing inherent in "allow" that requires them. God may "allow" for no other reason than because he is not omnipotent - that would shoot down both of your built-in assumptions here.

nonsense. if He wasn't capable of stopping it, it wouldn't be allowing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Yes, I know what christianity says. However, the model I presented is not answered by re-stating christianity's viewpoint. If God only "allows" evil, then why isn't the same true with good? God wants credit for good, but not for evil?

well, that sounds similar to deism which some people believe. obviously christian theists and deists differ in certain beliefs. you said you already know what christianity says about God so you can answer your own question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Is it christian context? Are you sure?

yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The fact that he is questioning it denies that the christian context holds for both participants.

no it doesn't

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

He may accept the existence of a god, but may also be convinced that said god is indifferent.

great. then show.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Yes, I saw you claim that. Haven't seen the proof of that assertion, though -- will it be forthcoming anytime soon?

in what way does suffering have meaning for the ontological naturalist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

No, I think you responded by re-stating the christian position. Not quite the same as refuting his assumptions.

no, i asked the question why should it be any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

As for what standard - I would say that he is using the ordinary human sense of fairness to trump the christian position.

since there is no such standard of human fairness, what do we do now?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-18-2005, 10:40 AM

Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #388.

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Please do. 1. Adam? Who was he?

explained in genesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

2. When did he live?

how is this relevant to adam's disobedience?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

3. What experience or knowledge did he have?

he knew that the tree was forbidden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

4. And why are the descendants at fault?

at fault of what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The case is yours to make. You've invoked the binary middle and/or the excluded middle at least four times in the last two pages of postings. And you've invoked it as a way to explain discrepancies between the nature of God and the behavior we see.

right. and i provided precisely how it was that case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Which is just a handwave; a flimsy I.O.U. that you want to shove into the poker game, because you don't have anything substantial to offer.

i provided a specific option that was excluded. you merely call it a handwaive and insubstantial without showing how it is so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

If there was some life experience or knowledge that had to be gained or passed to human beings, then that knowledge could also be passed to them in a painless fashion.

ok. posit your explanation of how the knowledge can be dispensed in a painless fasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

You also seem to credit "God" with accidental by-products of bad events, as if it were some 'grand design'. By that argument, we should all go out and rape and pillage, because we're just carrying out God's will - he may have a good reason for allowing the suffering we bring to others. I may certainly wish my left hand was as skillful as my right hand. But I'm not going to go out and hack my right hand off just to force myself to gain skill using the left hand. The "ultimately good benefit" isn't worth the pain I would have to go through to obtain the skill --- and there are several other ways to gain the same skill, without the blood and the pain.

the discussion has revolved around inscrutible evil, not gratuitous evil.

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Johnny asked you for evidence, for proof. It goes without saying that he wanted reputable sources, not those with a vested interest in defending the prophecy.

the information is either correct or incorrect regardless of who presents it. the source could be a total crackpot and the information still be correct. to say otherwise is a logical fallacy called ad hominem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Even if this were not a prophecy, we would not simply take the internal witness at face value, especially if the claims were fantastic -- as they are in this book. If this were a newly discovered work by Homer, we would check any internal claims against external evidences.

this is where i provided a response asking how we know the external sources are credible or authoritative. how do we know anything from antiquity is true?

the fantastic nature of ezekiel's claims are not fantastic when considering that the events are supposed to be carried out or precipitated by an allegedly omnipotent God.

i agree that the account shouldn't be taken at face value. the issue then becomes any contradictory information. is there such?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Humor me and point me to the post(s).

the response is the same i provided above. how do we know the truth of anything from antiquity.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-18-2005, 03:02 PM

Another update:

I have now had bfniii on "ignore" for TWO weeks due to his ongoing failure to address the Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood? thread, and the Why do Jews deny Christ as the Messiah? thread, despite repeatedly claiming that he was capable of arguing these issues.

I will continue to keep bfniii on "ignore" until he posts on one of those threads.

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Hell,

the assumption here is that God has provided no means of redemption. given the fact that God has provided such, no person is in danger unless they freely reject it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

death, etc.

no one is in danger of death because every person is mortal. death isn't a danger to people, it's inevitable. it would only be a danger if one could lose immortality here on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

1. Already read them. 2. Not out of context.

if you had read them, you would know that your commentary isn't accurate. you took a verse out of context. the context mentions a very specific circumstance prior to being in "the hands of the living God".

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

You have? Please give me the good reason for destroying all of mankind (except for Gilgamesh and his family) the destruction included the newborn and the unborn. Thank you for supplying the excluded middle.

genesis 6:5, 11

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Even our current administration admits that drowning is torture. God did it to all of mankind--except for Gilgamesh and family. I take it you don't regard deliberate drowning as torture. Is that correct?

so you are saying drowning is torture. how do we know drowning is torture? what constitutes torture?

bfniii · 10-18-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I consider a god who orders its chosen people to kill all of a neighboring people, including children

now just show that this was completely undeserved

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

--but sparing the virgin girls for later raping by the soldiers--is viciously sadistic. If that doesn't bother your moral sense, then I feel sorry for you.

what evidence is there that this raping happened?

John A. Broussard · 10-18-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

now just show that this was completely undeserved

The fact that you even ask the question about whether or not the killing of babies was deserved speaks well for your moral principles.

Please explain to me why the killing of the babies was "deserved."

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

what evidence is there that this raping happened?

Any suggestions as to why they specifically were not killed?

Thanks.

10-18-2005, 10:40 AM	#392
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Biblical errors Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #388.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2005, 03:02 PM	#395
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Another update: I have now had bfniii on "ignore" for TWO weeks due to his ongoing failure to address the Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood? thread, and the Why do Jews deny Christ as the Messiah? thread, despite repeatedly claiming that he was capable of arguing these issues. I will continue to keep bfniii on "ignore" until he posts on one of those threads.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.