Solo

The first question about this armchair salvific statement of mission is - why do you believe it is your job to heal people (are you not a physician ?), to feed people (are you not a farmer ?), protect them (not a policeman ?). Why don't you pick a profession instead of engaging in phantasies which don't help anyone, least of all, yourself ?

And while you are at it, why don't you pick someone particular to love in place of the whole humanity ? Find it hard to commit ?

Your view of God is hopelessly retrograde. The Hebrews were abandoning a "hyper-engaged", "interfering", God after Babylon, and even if Christianity (and more generally apocalyptism from which it sprang), was a throwback, God's militant engagement qua Jesus was soon hermetically sealed and put away into liturgy where it caused no grief to, or whetted no ambitions in, the mentally unbalanced. You want to help ? Take up your cross and follow !

Looks to me you are on the wrong medication. Pardon me for speaking plainly.

Jiri

Johnny Skeptic

How utterly absurd. I assume that you are not as ignorant as you appear to be. If you go back and read what I said, I was talking about what I would do if I had God's power. I suggest that you take a beginner's course in reading comprehension.

I have done plenty to help humanity. What have you done to help humanity?

Regarding "fantasies", my comments were philosophical in nature. Your viewer profile says that your interests are philosophy and history. Have you abandoned your interest in philosophy?

As I recall, I already embarrassed you in a debate on homosexuality months ago. It looks like you want to embarrass yourself again. Good, I could use some extra entertainment.

Edit: The thread that I embarrassed you on homosexuality is at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=171529, a thread that you started, and conveniently vacated after you embarrassed yourself.

mens_sana

There is a story about a group of rabbis that had come together to argue out a thorny issue in the Law. The convocation lasted for an exhausing number of days, until finally a resolution was reached. The, out of the heavens, comes this very loud voice, "That is NOT what I meant!" The presiding rabbi stood up and replied, "Tough — the Law is the Law."

Apikorus

torah lo bashamayim hi

Solo

Thank you, Johnny, for providing the link. Since none of this has anything tangible to do with Abrahamic Scripture, you will have to kindly excuse me....again. :wave:

Jiri

seebs

I think you're half-right.

I do not believe there is an action you can use to prove that someone is not acting in a loving manner without knowing the circumstances and their perception.

But you know what? That's okay, because you never need to know. I don't need to know whether anyone but me is acting in a loving manner. Not my job to judge others.

Johnny Skeptic

But the undecided crowd are not certain whether to believe that the writers spoke for God, or for themselves. They want to know why you assume that the Bible is inerrant when Farrell Till, and many other skeptics, have reasonably proven that inerrancy is a fraud, and they want to know why you have continued to refuse to defend inerrancy when many of your arguments, like predestination, which is also a provable fraud, depend lock, stock, and barrel upon the Bible being inerrant. You are poorly prepared to defend inerrancy, and you know it. You are not known for conducting extensive, detailed research. Properly debating the issue of inerrancy would take extensive, detailed research. You obviously are not willing and able to conduct the proper research regarding inerrancy, so I accept you admission of defeat. You told me to start a thread on inerrancy as an evavise delaying tactic when you knew full well that there are already two existing threads at this forum on inerrancy. Now are you going to tell us that you did not know about that? One wonders to what extent you will go to embarrass yourself further.

You typically say something, but essentially say nothing of any value at all. You said:

First of all, you do not know that that is the testimony of the writers themselves since you do not have any idea whatsoever what writings comprised the originals, and whether or not the original have been changed. Second of all, everyone already knows that people are free to accept of reject whatever they want to accept or reject. I have debated you for a long time, and I have become aware that one of your favorite strategies is to outlast your opponents by frequently posting arguments that do not make any sense, like this one, in the hopes that you will outlast your opponents, and give undecided readers the impression that since your opponents have quit, they have admitted defeat. First of all, I doubt that ANY of your opponents who gave up did so because you convinced them of anything at all. Second of all, as long as I live, and am able to make posts, I will never give up debating you. My life expectancy is about 15 years, and while my arguments over the last few weeks have gotten better, yours have gotten worse. Such being the case, if I live for another 15 years, either I will outlive you, you will outlive me, or you will give up.

rhutchin

If, in a world, it is not your job to judge others (and presumably not anyone else either) then is it possible for a person to do wrong in such a world? If it were possible for a person to do wrong in such a world, could anyone do anything about it without having to judge the person?

Johnny Skeptic

As usual, you do not have any intelligent arguments to make whatsoever. You claim that homosexuality is wrong. Where is your evidence? If your evidence is the Bible, what is the Bible? Who decided which writings would be included in the Bible? What evidence do you have that the writers always spoke for God and not for themselves? You claim that the Bible is inerrant? Where is your evidence? You once said that if I gave you specific examples about inerrancy, you would discuss them. I did give you some of Farrell Till's specific examples in another thread at this forum, but you refused to discuss the examples. I posted them on several occasions. You claim that the God of the Bible exists. Where is your evidence? You claim that God's character has nothing to do with whether or not a person should accept him. Where is your evidence? That was possibly the most absurd claim that you have ever made. What right does God has to judge anyone since he is a hypocrite and breaks his own rules whenever he wants to. One example is that the Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills some of his most devout and faithful followers, including babies, and animals. Another example is that the Bible says that believers can ask God for wisdom and receive, but that is a lie. I am sure that some early American Christians who endorsed slavery asked God for wisdom about the issue of slavery, and God refused to tell them that slavery is wrong. May I ask how you are able to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind? God's refusal to reveal himself to people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists proves that he has detestable character. If you have children, you would not be willing that any of your children perish in a hurricane, and yet you do not have any problem loving a God who might be willing that some of your children perish.

I wish to have a debate with you about predestination. If I start a new thread about predestination, will you participate in it? If so, I will use some of my own arguments, and the arguments of a number of Christian web sites. I might even invite some Arminian scholars to participate. You ought to be well aware by now that I do not mind having debates that last for more than a year.

I have become aware that you will debate a given issue at length, sometimes for months, but when you know that you are in trouble, you either become evasive, or you refuse to debate the issue anymore. Thanks very much for helping to build my confidence. Your arguments have now become quite easy to refute.

seebs

Sure.

Because "anyone else" might refer to "us fallible mortals".

There's a book I like to recommend to people which has some charming little stories in it, many of which have morals. For instance, in one of them, there's a story about a man who sows wheat in a field, but another plant, called "tares", is also sown in the same field. The plants look similar at first, so instead of having people uproot all the tares and risk damaging the wheat, he has them wait until the plants are full-grown and then separate them out.

I feel this might have some applicability.

You might want to distinguish between "wrong" and "harmful or disruptive to others". I am fairly solidly convinced that it is morally wrong to hope that others will suffer, but I see no reason to "do anything about it". On the other hand, there may be some actions, the morality of which is very hard to figure out, which it is worth taking steps to prevent because of their disruptive effects.

To give relevant examples, I have no reason to know or care whether or not it is "wrong" for someone somewhere to have premarital sex. Not my problem. It is logically impossible for me to have premarital sex, so I have no reason to form an opinion on the question. It's none of my business.

When we are discussing a moral question, it is crucial to understand that the person whose morality concerns you is you. You do not need to know whether my choices are moral or not. You haven't got enough information to reach an informed conclusion on the issue in any event.

It is not a flaw in a moral system to observe that it only lets you judge your own actions. We don't need to make moral judgements about other people; their moral choices are up to them.

Speaking of that book I was mentioning, there's a wonderful example about removing the beam from your own eye before trying to remove a mote from someone else's. This, I think, is also relevant. I once saw a very funny billboard that said "Four out of five divorced Baptists believe gays are destroying marriage." Thinking about it, I suspect that I could quite productively spend the remainder of my natural life attempting to improve my own moral choices, and still have work left to do. This strikes me as perhaps a better choice than obsessing over other peoples' wee-wees.