‹ First  < 6 7 8
 
   
 

What’s in it for God?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
15 January 2019 09:14
 
MrRon - 14 January 2019 07:24 PM
TwoSeven1 - 14 January 2019 09:36 AM

“I don’t see how you can think that we HAVEN’T been using the Bible as a point of reference!!”  -I have been using it as my point of reference.

Me too. You just won’t/can’t answer the questions.

All you have presented to me are your own interpretations of the Bible and a bunch of hypotheticals.

In other words, you refuse to answer questions that make you uncomfortable by forcing you to think of the consequences of your beliefs. For example, you’ve indicated that it’s just for God to drown the babies and children of all the “evil” people on the planet because they would grow up to be evil too. So should we be killing the children of death row inmates? It’s a perfectly reasonable question in light of your stated belief.

I’ll withdraw from this discussion in light of our core disagreement on how to proceed.

You can withdraw from the discussion, but you can’t withdraw from your cognitive dissonance. 

- How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature (including human babies) on the planet?
- What were people doing that made them “evil”?
- Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
- Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?
- Would you be so tolerant if people of other religions reflexively deferred everything back to their particular book and refused to acknowledge that they would change their mind if their book contained contradictions/errors?
- Should we be killing the children of death row inmates?


Ron

This will be my last response to you in this thread, Ron-

“Me too.“  Not sure how you can say this when you haven’t posted verses from the Bible even one time during this discussion.  I pointed out to you that you were mistaken on what the Bible says multiple times.  You admitted to me that you don’t even know what the Bible says.

“In other words…”  In your words.

“...you’ve indicated that it’s just for God to drown the babies and children of all the ‘evil’ people on the planet because they would grow up to be evil too.”  In the context of Genesis, it was just for God to wipe out the people group who were only evil, all the time.  Although the Bible doesn’t say that they had children, it follows that if they did, they would be only evil, all the time as well.

There is something I would like to point out to you about your perspective on God, the Bible and Genesis.  Since God created human beings, why would he be subject to them?  Would human beings not be subject to him instead?  Why couldn’t God be just and do the things he did in Genesis?  Why would he be accountable to human beings as if they have superior moral understanding?  Since God is the creator, he has the ultimate authority to destroy, but we know that he is just because of why he used that power.  Also, God promised to never again destroy the Earth with a flood after that.

Food for thought:  We give our governments the authority to destroy human beings.  Why do we give them this power?

“So should we be killing the children of death row inmates? It’s a perfectly reasonable question in light of your stated belief.”  What do you think about your own question?  How do you answer it?  Let me remind you that the answer from either of us has no relevance to the actual subject of discussion.  It’s a hypothetical question that pays no regard for Biblical context.

“You can withdraw from the discussion, but you can’t withdraw from your cognitive dissonance.”  Ok, Bill Nye.

“- How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God?”  How do you?

“- What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What do you suppose?

“- Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?”  Do you?

“- Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life ‘indentured servitude’?”  Besides this being a loaded question, what do you call indentured servitude?

“- Would you be so tolerant…”  Looking back, I don’t see much tolerance from you.

“- Should we be killing the children of death row inmates?”  What do you say?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
15 January 2019 18:08
 
TwoSeven1 - 15 January 2019 09:14 AM

This will be my last response to you in this thread, Ron-

OK, fine. Then I will leave you with much to think about. Because I know that as a decent person, these questions/comments will (should) torment you to some degree. Just remember, it’s not your moral instincts that are incorrect - it’s your dogma.

“Me too.“  Not sure how you can say this when you haven’t posted verses from the Bible even one time during this discussion.  I pointed out to you that you were mistaken on what the Bible says multiple times.  You admitted to me that you don’t even know what the Bible says.

Why must I post verses from the Bible? I’ll post them if and when appropriate. So far, it hasn’t been necessary. But please, go ahead and post some if you think it helps your arguments. And we can go from there. But first I’d like to know whether it matters to you if there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible. Does it?

What was I mistaken on?

Again, I didn’t know whatever the Bible said on that one particular point we were discussing at the time. And besides, even if I didn’t know ANYTHING from the Bible, it would still be incumbent upon you to give a rational justification for your beliefs. 

“In other words…”  In your words.

“...you’ve indicated that it’s just for God to drown the babies and children of all the ‘evil’ people on the planet because they would grow up to be evil too.”  In the context of Genesis, it was just for God to wipe out the people group who were only evil, all the time.  Although the Bible doesn’t say that they had children, it follows that if they did, they would be only evil, all the time as well.

No, it does NOT follow that bad/evil people have evil offspring. If I could give you examples of the benign offspring of notorious killers, would that change your mind? And I don’t care what the “context” is. It is never right to kill babies because of a perceived inherent “evilness.” Period. 

There is something I would like to point out to you about your perspective on God, the Bible and Genesis.  Since God created human beings, why would he be subject to them?  Would human beings not be subject to him instead?  Why couldn’t God be just and do the things he did in Genesis?  Why would he be accountable to human beings as if they have superior moral understanding?  Since God is the creator, he has the ultimate authority to destroy, but we know that he is just because of why he used that power.  Also, God promised to never again destroy the Earth with a flood after that.

How do you know that God is good? Because he says so? Or because he created us and wields power? Is it possible that God is evil and malicious (as evidenced by his atrocities)? In fact, unmitigated natural disasters, disease, babies born with deformities, etc. all point to a God who is not good and all-powerful. So how would you tell the difference between an all-good God and an evil and malicious God operating in the world?

Food for thought:  We give our governments the authority to destroy human beings.  Why do we give them this power?

I already answered this.

“So should we be killing the children of death row inmates? It’s a perfectly reasonable question in light of your stated belief.”  What do you think about your own question?  How do you answer it?  Let me remind you that the answer from either of us has no relevance to the actual subject of discussion.  It’s a hypothetical question that pays no regard for Biblical context.

I would answer it by saying, “no – we should absolutely NOT be killing children of death row inmates.” Now give me your answer. And yes, it has everything to do with Biblical context. Because either God has a perfect and everlasting moral code, or his morals are subject to change. And if his morals are subject to change, then he can’t be all-knowing and perfect, can he? And what if he declared that murder is suddenly OK? Would you be OK with that? What if he declared that raping children is OK? Would you be OK with that? 

“You can withdraw from the discussion, but you can’t withdraw from your cognitive dissonance.”  Ok, Bill Nye.

You got it, Ken Ham.

“- How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God?”  How do you?

I don’t. I don’t believe in any gods. But YOU do! So how do YOU distinguish them?

“- What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What do you suppose?

I don’t suppose. I don’t believe the story. But YOU do! So you tell me what they were doing.

“- Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?”  Do you?

Yes, of course (that’s the “all-powerful” part). Do you? 

“- Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life ‘indentured servitude’?”  Besides this being a loaded question, what do you call indentured servitude?

YOU are the one making a distinction between slavery and indentured servitude. So it’s on you to explain yourself. Are you going to answer it? 

“- Would you be so tolerant…”  Looking back, I don’t see much tolerance from you.

I agree. I am not too tolerant of smug righteousness, evasiveness, and willful ignorance.

“- Should we be killing the children of death row inmates?”  What do you say?

Already answered. What do YOU say?


Ron

[ Edited: 16 January 2019 03:00 by MrRon]
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8