Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 05-26-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Apparently there wasn't if God chose that way. God doesn't put us through trials and tribulations just for the heck of it. If He does something, He has a very good reason for doing it - whether we know that reason and agree with it or not.

Ok, let's cut to the chase. Would you judge the treatment of Job morally wrong if it was done by any being other than God?

winstonjen · 05-27-2003, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Ok, let's cut to the chase. Would you judge the treatment of Job morally wrong if it was done by any being other than God?

I can already predict the response - "Only GAWD has ultimate knowledge of everything, and he is perfectly just, so it is OK for him to torture, mutilate and destroy what he creates."

To that I say - "So? The results are the same regardless of WHO does it."

Magus55 · 05-27-2003, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones
There is no god.

Hey HJ, prove it.

Magus55 · 05-27-2003, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Ok, let's cut to the chase. Would you judge the treatment of Job morally wrong if it was done by any being other than God?

Yes, because no one else has the right to do what God did. God created everything, and can take life for what ever reason He sees fit. Humans don't have the right to take life, God does.

Philosoft · 05-27-2003, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Yes, because no one else has the right to do what God did. God created everything, and can take life for what ever reason He sees fit. Humans don't have the right to take life, God does.

Okay. You have henceforth forfeited any claim to an objective morality. If God can take life "for whatever reason he sees fit," then God as the source of morality is an empty proposition.

Look, if you think God created us with a slightly screwy moral sense, just say so. If an obviously morally deficient state-of-affairs is sometimes better, then we should question whether we really understand divine morality in every case.

luvluv · 05-27-2003, 11:04 AM

The Christians used the word "test" in metalurgical or sword-making sense of the word "test." To metalllurgists, to TEST something means to subject it to an intense process designed to reshape metal for a purpose. In that sense, to test the metal is not to give the metal a quiz to see what the metal will do. The metallurgist knows exactly what will happen to a piece of metal placed into the fire. The object is also not to reveal to the metal it's own lack of knowledge. It is not primarily of importance that the metal "knows" how it is being strengthened, it is only important that it actually BE strengthened.

To test metal is to subject it to a process that will reshape, purify, and strengthen it, like swords are perfected in the metallurgist's shop. God tests us in similar ways. The tests aren't to figure out our motives, nor to reveal them to us, but to reshape, purify, and strengthen us.

(I said it before, I'll say it again, this place needs a theology forum. You guys are the star pupils of the apologist's class, as you know all the arguments for God's nature inside and out. But [insult deleted] your arguments about God's nature and character are positively child-like.)

[I'll leave the "child-like" bit, as I see no insult in using child-like arguments to rebut child-like faith. Indeed, if child-like arguments are this effective against faith, why bother with anything more complex? -d]

Philosoft · 05-27-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
To test metal is to subject it to a process that will reshape, purify, and strengthen it, like swords are perfected in the metallurgist's shop. God tests us in similar ways. The tests aren't to figure out our motives, nor to reveal them to us, but to reshape, purify, and strengthen us.

Yeah, and we're still talking about an omnipotent being. And we're still talking about our patent inability to grasp the alleged moral righteousness inherent in God's treatment of Job.

Quote:

(I said it before, I'll say it again, this place needs a theology forum. You guys are the star pupils of the apologist's class, as you know all the arguments for God's nature inside and out. But insult deleted your arguments about God's nature and character are positively child-like.)

I wanted to go to theology school but they didn't have the class I was looking for: 'Logically Consistent Arguments and God's Nature' I coudn't find that damn class anywhere in the country.

MadMez · 05-27-2003, 12:28 PM

LuvLuv:
"In that sense, to test the metal is not to give the metal a quiz to see what the metal will do. "

That's not true. The steel industry, amongst others, issues Mill (or Heat) certificates to show that a beam, etc, can be used for a specific purpose. There are many variables that go into rolling steel, so you can't know it strength for sure, until you test it.

The AISC demands steel be tested in this maner.

If you were, on the other hand, an omniscient steel mill, then you wouldn't need to test the steel. You could just go ahead and tell the fabricators to"reshape, purify, and strengthen" it, and know when it would fail.

"your arguments about God's nature and character are positively child-like". This is quite a wonderful compliment, actually, thanks!

Wyz_sub10 · 05-27-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
I said it before, I'll say it again, this place needs a theology forum. You guys are the star pupils of the apologist's class, as you know all the arguments for God's nature inside and out. But insult deleted your arguments about God's nature and character are positively child-like.

...like your analogy of testing steel?

Mageth · 05-27-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by hezekiah jones
There is no god.

Magus' response:
Hey HJ, prove it.

But Magus said earlier:
God exists outside time and space.

Umm, you proved it for him. If god is indeed "outside time and space", then god can't be said to "exist" in any meaningful sense.

BTW, Magus' "Hey HJ, prove it" is practically the same question I'll pose to God if I ever meet him and he claims to be omniscient.

"OK, God, prove it."

THAT should blow his mind, because he couldn't prove it.

05-27-2003, 12:28 PM	#48
MadMez Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Bend, OR, USA Posts: 360	My 2� LuvLuv: "In that sense, to test the metal is not to give the metal a quiz to see what the metal will do. " That's not true. The steel industry, amongst others, issues Mill (or Heat) certificates to show that a beam, etc, can be used for a specific purpose. There are many variables that go into rolling steel, so you can't know it strength for sure, until you test it. The AISC demands steel be tested in this maner. If you were, on the other hand, an omniscient steel mill, then you wouldn't need to test the steel. You could just go ahead and tell the fabricators to"reshape, purify, and strengthen" it, and know when it would fail. "your arguments about God's nature and character are positively child-like". This is quite a wonderful compliment, actually, thanks!

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

05-27-2003, 11:04 AM	#46
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	The Christians used the word "test" in metalurgical or sword-making sense of the word "test." To metalllurgists, to TEST something means to subject it to an intense process designed to reshape metal for a purpose. In that sense, to test the metal is not to give the metal a quiz to see what the metal will do. The metallurgist knows exactly what will happen to a piece of metal placed into the fire. The object is also not to reveal to the metal it's own lack of knowledge. It is not primarily of importance that the metal "knows" how it is being strengthened, it is only important that it actually BE strengthened. To test metal is to subject it to a process that will reshape, purify, and strengthen it, like swords are perfected in the metallurgist's shop. God tests us in similar ways. The tests aren't to figure out our motives, nor to reveal them to us, but to reshape, purify, and strengthen us. (I said it before, I'll say it again, this place needs a theology forum. You guys are the star pupils of the apologist's class, as you know all the arguments for God's nature inside and out. But [insult deleted] your arguments about God's nature and character are positively child-like.) [I'll leave the "child-like" bit, as I see no insult in using child-like arguments to rebut child-like faith. Indeed, if child-like arguments are this effective against faith, why bother with anything more complex? -d]

05-27-2003, 02:23 PM	#50
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by hezekiah jones There is no god. Magus' response: Hey HJ, prove it. But Magus said earlier: God exists outside time and space. Umm, you proved it for him. If god is indeed "outside time and space", then god can't be said to "exist" in any meaningful sense. BTW, Magus' "Hey HJ, prove it" is practically the same question I'll pose to God if I ever meet him and he claims to be omniscient. "OK, God, prove it." THAT should blow his mind, because he couldn't prove it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.