Sven

But I was talking about the acceptance of what you stated below:

For this I wanted support. Again, you're the first one I've heard claiming this.

Did I imply this? Possible. Regardless, that's what happens often.

But isn't it interesting that those who deconvert are often those who educated themselves? Whereas the masses attending church every week often have not the slightest clue of any scholary work. This is at least something one should think about. *shrug*

Evasion noted.

Please cite some of these basics. You can spare us the beliefs god created the universe and that Jesus lived and died, these are irrelevant for god's plan. More interesting would be the (supposed!) agreement on salvation - a central point to god's plan, don't you think?
Interestingly, exactly this is a point on which the denominations can not agree. :wave:

No, a factual one. Which becomes abundantly clear when looking at different denominations, each of them citing specific verses and claiming that is what is god's plan about (re: salvation) - and while doing this contradicting each other.

You do. As occured several times in this thread, for instance, when you repeatedly disputed the work of biblical scholars. Or when you brought up a strange interpretation of Genesis which I've never heard from another Christian. You just did it again:

John A. Broussard

Thank you for proving my point. It is a very unrealistic expectation for an amputee to pray to god to have his/her missing limb grow back.

Now, don't you consider it rather strange that a goat herder, thousands of years ago, could ask your god to make the sun stand still--and have god respond favorably--yet amputees can't and don't ask for a simple favor like a new limb because that's unrealistic?

I'm looking forward to your answer.

bfniii

the law of identity states that a=a. the subject exists and can be differentiated from something else.

that's not what i'm doing. i'm applying a method so that we can agree to a common reference point.

it doesn't have to be distinguished from someone of that ilk. have we experienced evil, yes or no? i think the overwhelmingly common answer would be yes. even if we took into account people who couldn't or had trouble answering for themselves, that in no way diminishes the experiences of others. so again, we all have a perspective from which to competently comment on.

by the same way that christianity makes such claims. how do we know anything at all?

now all you need to do is prove there is no way we could ever know such a plan.

perhaps you could expound on that idea so that i can adequately respond.

so you seem to be saying that a person dying before they can make choices for themselves is unjust. is that correct?

doomed? doomed in what way?

that wasn't the question. the question was if you believe that an omnipotent God has a provision for such people. does christianity have a provision against such people?

i am trying to get us to agree to a common starting point; that being what is just or good, unjust or evil. i am sorry that you think it is evading.

spin

Before you get there you need to say what defines a.

You dropped a bunch of initials in my lap and ran. You claimed that they were legitimate philosophical standards and I challenged you as bandying terms.

Your methodology so far has been to hedge and change feet.

Then you have no means of defining it

What's evil?? Is the shrub's war on the poor (financially and living standard-wise) people of Iraq evil? Obviously the shrub doesn't think so. Nor do any of the slugs that float around him. Was the destruction of many native American populations evil? Obviously not to the people who were involved. Was the introduction of opium into China by the British in the middle 1800s evil?

But then half of the American voters voted for the shrub a second time.

No, we don't. It is almost totally irrelevant to the notion of what is "good", some assumption about what people presume to be the opposite of good. Was slavery evil? If so, why did so many people fight for it??


Through evidence, objectively acceptible data that bears on the issue under discussion.

No, I don't. You need to show how you know what you were assuming.

Beneficial to all? You know where no-one loses out. Where all gain in some way. The concept is not rocket science.

I'm saying that under standard christian theology there is no way for such people to avoid eternal damnation as they have not come to belive in god.

They are assured of early death. Early enough not to be able to intend good or evil, to choose god and be saved according to the necessities of christian theology.

Your question is simply superfluous. We are not dealing with my beliefs.

Given Christian theology which states what its method of salvation is, those who die before the age to intend are excluded from salvation.

I was trying to get a meaningful definition from you not a hedging about starting points. Do you need a common starting point to consult a dictionary? All I have been asking you is to provide a dictionary standard definition of a term you are using in an apparently highly idiosyncratic manner. The idea of objectivity (or the pursuit of it) should be a clear boon to such a conversation. One's terminology is clear and the discourse can go on.

What is your definition of "good"?


spin

bfniii

i'm not sure what kind of support you are looking for, but the system of redemption in the OT is the sacrifical system. in the NT, it's accepting Christ. the fact that the bible purports that God provided propitiation would seem to suggest that God was prepared for/had a plan for the fall of man.

but there are people who attend church who are in academia or are aware of atheist objections to christianity.

no response to my statement?

say what? those are exactly the types of subjects i was referring to as they are most germane regarding God's plan for mankind.

in what way do they disagree?

perhaps you could give some examples.

examples?

please outline this strange interpretation you are referring to and i will be glad to clear up the confusion

RGD

Which simply highlights the fundamental irrationality of your entire position.

Is God omniscient? If so, then God knew what Adam was going to do.

Is God independent of time? If so, then God didn't prepare anything.

Is God good according to God's own rules? No. Adam was expected to make a moral choice without the ability to make a moral choice.

God screwed him. End of story.

bfniii

well, the first reason why these two situations are not analogous is because of the immense difference in time. is there a reason why God should be expected to fulfill the same kind of miraculous requests now that He did then?

spin

This is not addressed to bfniii, but to non-believers.
Omniscience is a terrible thing for christians to deal with. God obviously knew before each individual arrived which way that individual would go -- after all he was responsible for creating them and knows everything. Being both responsible and knowing the eventualities, there was no need to allow a flawed being to come into existence and when you consider what is in store for that being, why deliberately allow the being to make the mistake they are going to make when it could be prevented?

But then the christian finds the mind of god inscrutible sometimes, while at other times they are veritable mindreaders of god, given their declarations about him. In these occasions when the christian finds god inscrutible, we are not allowed to analyse the implications because no-one can know the mind of god, except when the mood takes the christian. Then they'll tell you just what god is thinking, obviously by revelation (as they have the mind of Jesus!).

God, who doesn't need the non-believer to suffer, still causes that person to come into the world knowing that the person will choose wrongly and therefore will spend his afterlife in Jack Chick's hell. Why, despite the fact that none of it is necessary, but apparently is still done? We are to accept the notion that god is good (whatever that means in this context) and therefore has the best interests of the cosmos in "mind" when he condemns some poor sucker to perdition.

It is sufficient that Kim Doe has free will, so has eternity in her/his hands, according to the unnecessary rules inalienably set down by god, the creator of the being who makes the wrong choice.

Just imagine if parents could discipline wayward children as god does. I told you not to do that, Joey. Off you go to the lake of fire. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Whoooosh. Arrrrrrrrgh. He'll never do that again.

This is an example of the christian being the mindreader of god. Epistemology flies out the window. They have this infallible knowledge of the mind of god which appears to pop right out of their opinion churning little brains.

Ultimately though, the notion of "good" is what suffers here, for there is this arbitrary notion of "ultimate good" which the christian is unable to adequately define so that it is meaningful in the context it is used. When we, non-religious people, talk about "good", we have some utilitarian notion of benefit to all, but this is not relevant because god will happily consign transgressors to hell, so they don't get included in the coverage of benefit. Obviously, the christian has exclusive rights to use of the word "good", because it doesn't seem to mean what we understand of it and we are wrong because the christian has god on his/her side. What strikes me as odd though is that the christian cannot define this term "good". They pussyfooy around not explaining it, as though they are aware of some dishonesty in their approach which they can't admit, but it's not dishonest because they have god on their side and he covers it up and kisses it better. A very convenient god.

Still, it appears to this mere mortal, that despite the fact that god doesn't need anyone to suffer, die and get eternity in hell, that is most people's lot according to the christians. God will be responsible for the suffering, death and damnation of the individual, for that suffering, that death, and that damnation are all simply unnecessary. It helps nothing to say that everyone has a choice when the outcome of the choice is unnecessary.

What we are looking at is a pathetic theology.


spin

bfniii

that's the whole point of the exercise, to define good. what is your definition? what are examples of good?

are you asking me what LID and LNC mean? LID is law of identity and LNC is law of non-contradiction.

i do. my next words were showing that your example isn't analogous.

are you saying that these are examples of evil?

is this an answer to the fact that most everyone would say they have experienced evil?

so you are saying that no one truly experiences evil?

because people do evil things, right?

ok. is it objectively empirical that we can know good and evil exist because we experience them?

in regards to God's plan for mankind, is the christian bible's proclamation that the christian God has a plan for humans objective evidence that God intends His will to be for the good and well-being of humans?

i have. you claim that i can not competently comment on the fact that God intends good for the benefit of us all. i replied that not only have i experienced good and evil, but that if God did have a plan for us He would want us to know it. if you disagree, prove your point. show how there is no way we could know of such a plan.

ah. you want everyone to go to heaven. is that it?

perhaps you could back this up with some bible verses.

show that God has promised that such people will go to hell.

if the christian God exists, then that God is the embodiment and standard of good.

spin

So god can blithely rip heads of chickens and still be good. What a threadbare concept. But I needed you to be honest for a moment. You can now go back to crapping on. Don't let me stop you.


spin