Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Whether what you say is true or not, they're still not a Christian organization.

Now if you mean today I would agree with you. I meant in the days when what it is was formed. I did not mean to suggest they currently can be identified as a Christian organization. They have made that quite clear. I simply meant that it's existence can be traced to Christian foundations.

There's absolutely nothing at all on their website that I can see that indicates they are a Christian organization. Your brother-in-law may call himself a Christian, but that's not the same thing.

I did not mention nor is it relevant what my brother in law is. To tell the truth he act so Christian I never asked. The point was he is well versed on it's history and maybe a year and a half ago he gave the run down after I asked. I asked because I had learned in school (back when we read scripture and prayed I never saw a single gang-member, a single pregnant teen, a single act of gun violence, a single drug beyond pot, etc......) I was taught their Christian history with the names I gave. However in recent times I had heard them say they were neutral on these issues. So I wanted clarification. I gave you the short version. Christians created the cross and much later it dropped the affiliation in the interest of access and inclusion. Why has everything we discussed been condensed to this one issue. Did you think the red cross was a feather in secularisms cap or something. I can partially grant that but not it's foundation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now if you mean today I would agree with you. I meant in the days when what it is was formed. I did not mean to suggest they currently can be identified as a Christian organization. They have made that quite clear. I simply meant that it's existence can be traced to Christian foundations.

It wasn’t formed as a “Christian organization”, as far as I can see.

I did not mention nor is it relevant what my brother in law is. To tell the truth he act so Christian I never asked. The point was he is well versed on it's history and maybe a year and a half ago he gave the run down after I asked. I asked because I had learned in school (back when we read scripture and prayed I never saw a single gang-member, a single pregnant teen, a single act of gun violence, a single drug beyond pot, etc......) .

I’m sorry but it’s laughable to assert that the removal of scripture and prayer in schools led to gangs, teen pregnancy, gun violence and drug abuse. Such things have always existed, whether you saw them or not. Gun violence in the US goes way back, as we discussed before. People in the 1920s were using drugs all over the place. These are not new things you’re talking about here. Morphine, heroin and cocaine abuse were more common than you seem to think.

Back when my nana was a young girl (in the 1930s), she always tells me that nobody ever heard the word “pregnant” or saw a pregnant woman (because they were all supposed to stay indoors for some reason). That certainly doesn’t mean they didn’t exist – obviously they did. In fact, when she was in her twenties, she worked in some kind of Catholic shelter for pregnant teens and unwed mothers where they were shuffled in and out of back doors in secrecy. She even saw a nun give birth in a bathroom stall. Let’s not pretend everything was all pure with Christianity and hunky dory before the 1950s.

Never mind the horrific baby grave yard filled with the bodies of 800 babies and children they've just uncovered behind some Catholic "mother and baby home" in Ireland that were apparently buried there between 1925 and 1961. But keep telling yourself that teen pregnancy only began when prayer was removed from schools in the 50s.

I was taught their Christian history with the names I gave. However in recent times I had heard them say they were neutral on these issues. So I wanted clarification. I gave you the short version. Christians created the cross and much later it dropped the affiliation in the interest of access and inclusion. Why has everything we discussed been condensed to this one issue. Did you think the red cross was a feather in secularisms cap or something. I can partially grant that but not it's foundation/

Well, outside of what you’re telling me here, I see nothing to indicate that the Red Cross was established as a Christian organization. Clara Barton was a Universalist, so is it a Universalist organization then?

I’m just countering your apparent assertion that “my side” or atheists or whatever it is you’re talking about, are just as concerned about the well-being and future of humanity as you assert that Christians are.

 

[1robin]

What about the times when they used the words of the Bible to justify their actions?

Exodus 22:18

"Do not allow a sorceress to live."

Leviticus 20:27

"Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense."

Not if the context God comes with is included.

1. Sorceress is an English word not a Hebrew one. Why am I the only one who cares what the words actually used were and what they mean?
2. The word used is anan and it means: 1. Drug trafficking. 2. Cult practices. 3. Demonology. 4. Diviner. 5. Fortune tellers.

Below is a commentary.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 18. - Law against witchcraft. Witchcraft was professedly a league with powers in rebellion against God. How far it was delusion, how far imposture, how far a real conspiracy with the powers of evil, cannot now be known. Let the most rationalistic view be taken, and still there was in the practice an absolute renunciation of religion, and of the authority of Jehovah. Wizards (Leviticus 19:31) and witches were, therefore, under the Jewish theocracy, like idolaters and blasphemers, to be put to death.

3. Now if God exists there are evil powers and those who practice them. The unending evidence for possession, cult practices, the long history of shamanism, cannibalism, voodoo, etc... is more than enough evidence but I don't need it. You can't indict God or his word apart from the context they come with. If you do you are no longer talking about my God or my book.

4. So God comes in context. The context here is that Israel was to be the conduit for his revelation. He was to hold them to a higher standard based on the original covenant established with Abraham. The rewards were great and the requirements severe. No other race on earth was responsible for these standards and Israel ceased to be when Christ came. So these event sonly apply in Israel at this time for the reason that he wanted Israel to be pure and untainted so that his message would have maximum impact. This came through vast and sever rules because the reasons can not get any more important.

5. Israel was surrounded by people who practiced the most horrific stuff you can imagine. I have mentioned Canaanite's, Israel disobeyed God and did not wipe them out, they years later had some Hebrews sacrificing their children to Moloch. So the principle is sound when Israel did not obey they in fact were infested by the evils around them and this occurred time after time and they paid a heavy price for it.

6. So given the problem assumes God exists, if God exists he comes with context, his rules are justified within that context.

7. If you deny the context or God then of course they were wrong. Killing anyone based on prohibition that no God gave but are said to have come from him would be wrong.


So as always the argument is if God exists because if he does these actions (as shocking as they may be) are perfectly justified. You have your cart hitched to an assumed horse that didn't show. Most of us (even if some governments do not) consider death deserved at least in some cases. If in any case a person deserves it then what better case than a person who is wholly in league with the archenemy of, God, Israel, and man as a whole and is polluting the conduit by which God will send the savior and his message? How do you get more deserving of death? Not that that has been in effect for over 2000 years. It is too late, Satan lost, there is no need for it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not if the context God comes with is included.

1. Sorceress is an English word not a Hebrew one. Why am I the only one who cares what the words actually used were and what they mean?
2. The word used is anan and it means: 1. Drug trafficking. 2. Cult practices. 3. Demonology. 4. Diviner. 5. Fortune tellers.

Below is a commentary.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 18. - Law against witchcraft. Witchcraft was professedly a league with powers in rebellion against God. How far it was delusion, how far imposture, how far a real conspiracy with the powers of evil, cannot now be known. Let the most rationalistic view be taken, and still there was in the practice an absolute renunciation of religion, and of the authority of Jehovah. Wizards (Leviticus 19:31) and witches were, therefore, under the Jewish theocracy, like idolaters and blasphemers, to be put to death.

3. Now if God exists there are evil powers and those who practice them. The unending evidence for possession, cult practices, the long history of shamanism, cannibalism, voodoo, etc... is more than enough evidence but I don't need it. You can't indict God or his word apart from the context they come with. If you do you are no longer talking about my God or my book.

4. So God comes in context. The context here is that Israel was to be the conduit for his revelation. He was to hold them to a higher standard based on the original covenant established with Abraham. The rewards were great and the requirements severe. No other race on earth was responsible for these standards and Israel ceased to be when Christ came. So these event sonly apply in Israel at this time for the reason that he wanted Israel to be pure and untainted so that his message would have maximum impact. This came through vast and sever rules because the reasons can not get any more important.

5. Israel was surrounded by people who practiced the most horrific stuff you can imagine. I have mentioned Canaanite's, Israel disobeyed God and did not wipe them out, they years later had some Hebrews sacrificing their children to Moloch. So the principle is sound when Israel did not obey they in fact were infested by the evils around them and this occurred time after time and they paid a heavy price for it.

6. So given the problem assumes God exists, if God exists he comes with context, his rules are justified within that context.

7. If you deny the context or God then of course they were wrong. Killing anyone based on prohibition that no God gave but are said to have come from him would be wrong.


So as always the argument is if God exists because if he does these actions (as shocking as they may be) are perfectly justified. You have your cart hitched to an assumed horse that didn't show. Most of us (even if some governments do not) consider death deserved at least in some cases. If in any case a person deserves it then what better case than a person who is wholly in league with the archenemy of, God, Israel, and man as a whole and is polluting the conduit by which God will send the savior and his message? How do you get more deserving of death? Not that that has been in effect for over 2000 years. It is too late, Satan lost, there is no need for it.

I'm talking about people using the words from the Bible to justify horrific actions. Too bad you weren't around to lecture the Inquisitors on context.

 

[1robin]

It wasn’t formed as a “Christian organization”, as far as I can see.

It was first formed by a Christian for Christian reasons. It became an international force to be reckoned with and it's famous name entrenched when an American nurse who was Christian added it's largest chapter for Christian reasons. That is the sum total of my claim. Your contention keeps slightly morphing to counter stuff I never intended to suggest. I can't really get into this anyway. I don't see the point. You will not topple the fact Christianity has a greater record of benevolent sacrifice than any similar group.

I’m sorry but it’s laughable to assert that the removal of scripture and prayer in schools led to gangs, teen pregnancy, gun violence and drug abuse. Such things have always existed, whether you saw them or not. Gun violence in the US goes way back, as we discussed before. People in the 1920s were using drugs all over the place. These are not new things you’re talking about here. Morphine, heroin and cocaine abuse were more common than you seem to think.

Nothing can hardly be more appropriate. In general the deplorable conditions in schools closely mirrors God's removal from schools. Anyone who would deny the connection out of hand is blind. I specifically said, I even went back and made sure I used my school specifically so as to avoid exactly what you did. I know what your going to do and I plan for it but I can't stop it. I tried to avoid going off topic and discussing schools in general again but it didn't work.

Back when my nana was a young girl (in the 1930s), she always tells me that nobody ever heard the word “pregnant” or saw a pregnant woman (because they were all supposed to stay indoors for some reason). That certainly doesn’t mean they didn’t exist – obviously they did. In fact, when she was in her twenties, she worked in some kind of Catholic shelter for pregnant teens and unwed mothers where they were shuffled in and out of back doors in secrecy. She even saw a nun give birth in a bathroom stall. Let’s not pretend everything was all pure with Christianity and hunky dory before the 1950s.

Find anything I ever stated that even hinted that Christianity has ever been anything but flawed in general. I have no problem pointing out it's faults and am frequently the first to do so. However general trends are a little different. Anyone who denies this nation has morally decayed at a greatly increased rate as God was denied is not in reality and hard to have a debate with. I can debate whether that was the cause or not but the correlation is so exact it is only denied out of hand by people with an agenda.

Well, outside of what you’re telling me here, I see nothing to indicate that the Red Cross was established as a Christian organization. Clara Barton was a Universalist, so is it a Universalist organization then?

Let me clarify again. You keep arguing against things I never intended to claim. I will rant that my language was not exact enough to handle your cross examination. I made it clear enough above I hope. If it were not for Clara's Christian ideals the red cross as we know it would never have occurred. It was formed out of Christian motivations and originally grew out of Christian ideals. It is the same as trying to separate Christianity's influence from Norway or Sweden. They are officially secular but at their core they have a Christian soul that is inseparable from their identity and what they are. Quite a bit more influential over the centuries of their past than the few decades of their neutral theological stance. Not believing in something is never an inspiration for anything nor the source of a single moral truth.

I’m just countering your apparent assertion that “my side” or atheists or whatever it is you’re talking about, are just as concerned about the well-being and future of humanity as you assert that Christians are.

I do not think they are but I have never ever stated that. I don't know, and I am in the case of world aid or in an individual case quite willing to grant their potential moral equality or even superiority depending on what Christian they are compared to. I was responding to your comments on Christianity, I did not originate any judgment of secularism in this discussion with you.

 

[1robin]

I'm talking about people using the words from the Bible to justify horrific actions. Too bad you weren't around to lecture the Inquisitors on context.

Well then you might want to tell me who did this and when? If in 800Bc Israel it was justifiable. In 1800AD united states it was not. I am not saying that evil practitioners of demonology or voodoo are any more or less guilty or deserving of death today but that we are not tasked with judging them and have not been for 2000 plus years. The moral truths have not changed but the methodology by which they are enacted has with God's plans and purposes. So if specific you need to supply specific details. I condemn the inquisition, many of the acts of the crusades (most in fact), maybe half of what Cortez did, the IRA, the British colonial actions, etc..... I always accept Christian responsibility for these acts whether or not atheists will accept the responsibility of atheism for the order of magnitude greater atrocities, even though they have nothing to do with God or the bible. Christians are at fault not God or the bible.

 

[Clear]

1) Robin1 said : “ in my case they come in torrents and appear to be simply copied from sites."
If you see any portion of my posts on the fall of Lucifer on any historical sites, it will be because they are quoting me. Look at the historian they are quoting from. That historian is me.


2) Robin1 said : “It is hard for me to engage in something that large.”
If you cannot engage in something that large, then do not try to. Most christians simply quote Jesus saying “I saw Satan fall like lightning out of heaven” (Luke 10:18) and then engage in silly debates regarding a single such sentence without significant context for the events surrounding this historical event. If that is the type of "debate" you want, then you are welcome to enter into that sort of debate.

However, If you notice, all seven posts from 3965 through 3971, regard a single issue and are clearer, deeper, and specific references surrounding the early Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition as to why the archangel Lucifer became an enemy to God and specific events which led up to and resulted in his Fall (expulsion) from Heaven. Part of the point is that various theories generated by and then adopted by the later Christian movements are often less detailed than original Christian theology; later religious theories are often less coherent than early theology; and later christian interpretations have no advantage over the earliest Christian interpretations.

While I like to examine a specific issue in greater depth to discover how well a specific premise holds up, your debates seem to be a sentence or two that debate many different issues on a very superficial level; considering philosophy, but not much data. I can’t say for sure, but I believe an analysis that goes into greater depth on a subject and it’s context tends to inform us better and more deeply and imparts greater understanding of a specific subject; and is a better way to judge whether a premise is correct than any superficial look.


3) Robin1 said : “I don't think you will find you have a historical advantage on me if we debated it.”
Firstly, I don't see why it is important for us to always be seeking some advantage over another person. Discussions that are collaborations are, I think, the most efficient way to examine any premise, especially a historical premise.

Secondly, If you noticed, we already have debated the historical issue of creation from “nothing”. That debate is over and the forum members have already made their decision and judged between your Christian generalization that matter is made from “nothing” and my historical description of the early Judeo-Christian belief that matter is made from matter.

If forum members believe that material things are made from “nothing”, it doesn’t change the historical fact that the early Judeo-Christian textual traditions mainly taught creation from matter. Whether readers believe that the early Christians belief in creation from matter were wrong and the later Christian theories of creation of matter from “nothing” are correct, the historical point doesn’t change. If, tomorrow it is discovered that all things are made from green cheese, it still won't change the early historical descriptions of early Judeo-Christians.



4) Robin1 said : “If you are not interested in debating me specifically then you can ignore my response.”
I never had any interest in debating you at all Robin1. As I pointed out, you and I have already debated your claim that christianity believes matter was created from “nothing” versus my claim that ancient Judeo-Christianity knew that material things were made from matter. I don’t normally care about debates since historical issues are often more objective and dependent upon data than the type of debates you are (at least in this thread) typically involved in.



5) Robin1 said : “I am one of the major contenders for the orthodox Christian side in these threads, right or wrong.”
I think Christians often proudly (but inaccurately) view themselves as “contenders for truth”, even if it is not “truth” we are defending. We Christians are OFTEN guilty of taking up our own personal theory and then presenting it as “authentic Christianity”.

Agnostics and Non-Theists are as intelligent as us and see that there are hundreds of competing Christian theories all claiming to be “true” and all of which have their “defenders”. There is nothing obvious that separates your claim to truth from the claims of other christians who are “major contenders” of different and incompatible claims. For example, while you see yourself as "orthodox", early Christians would have viewed some of your claims as "heretical". You are looking at the world through a self-centered point of view. Don't take this observation wrong, MOST of us do this. Also, remember that I actually like some of the logic and rationale you are able to generate, but think you are making some personal assumptions and thinking that they represent "original" authentic Judeo-Christianity.



Robin1, You are perfectly welcome to present to the forum readers, your own theory as to how the Archangel Lucifer became God’s enemy; to offer any data you have, and to tell us why we should believe your theory as more correct than the traditions of the earliest Jews; Christians/ and Muslims who all agreed on this one thing as I have shown. However, I think if you adopted the early Judeo-Christian worldview on this point, I think your arguments would become even more effective than if you adopt a different and more arbitrary modern Christian theory on the subject.

In any case, I hope your journey in this life is a good one Robin1.

Clear
σεεισιφυσιω

 

[johnhanks]

Quote a single statement I made in any of my almost 10,000 posts where I even hinted that less killing absolves the killers ... Every human on earth separates evils by degree. Christianity certainly has evil in it's past that is completely inconsistent with the faith but Atheism's (with the common inclusion of social Darwinism and secular philosophy) completely eclipses the Christian death toll.

In retrospect, mitigation would have been a better word than absolution. And the above is definitely a plea for mitigation.

I did not say that excused Christians (though it does not indict God or the bible in anyway), I merely wanted it viewed in it's actual context.

In other words, you were appealing to the argument fallacy known as tu quoque.

We were not discussing God where I mentioned the crusades, inquisitions, or atheist utopias, we were discussing what men do and the motivations by which they do them, or claim to anyway. Please leave my statements as stated and stop paraphrasing from them things they never even hinted at.

Glad to. My flippant "God less evil than Stalin" remark was in direct response to

Even God himself killed less people in 5000 years than Stalin did in a single year.

Please explain how in this sentence you were "not discussing God".

Even if we were discussing who God had killed you are still light years away from showing he murdered them or that he did was evil. I do not even know how you would go about that incredibly arrogant attempt.

Bear in mind that from where I'm standing god does not exist, so it would be absurd for me to accuse him of murder. The murders are solely down to his earthly followers, who have used their creed to paint the killings as necessary and righteous.
You will now, of course, deploy the No True Scotsman defence and declare that the killers were acting outside the tenets of Christianity. In my younger days I had many arguments with committed Marxists, who insisted that Communism was not to blame for atrocities in the Soviet Union because the men who committed them were not practising true Communism. If you find that excuse unconvincing, you will understand how some of us react to your claim that Christianity is not responsible for the homicides committed in its name.

 

[1robin]

If you see any portion of my posts on the fall of Lucifer on any historical sites, it will be because they are quoting me. Look at the historian they are quoting from. That historian is me.

I believe you cleared this up in a following statement and I withdrew my statement. Your saying your a masters or higher degreed historian? One that is published? I hope so because your claims will take on new light is such is the case.

If you cannot engage in something that large, then do not try to. Most christians simply quote Jesus saying “I saw Satan fall like lightning out of heaven” (Luke 10:18) and then engage in silly debates regarding a single such sentence without significant context for the events surrounding this historical event. If that is the type of "debate" you want, then you are welcome to enter into that sort of debate.

I have never engaged your Lucifer claims and I had no intention of engaging in the volume you can produce. I simply asked if you wished to pare it down so as to enable me to engage you. You do not seem to be interested in doing so and that is fine.

However, If you notice, all seven posts from 3965 through 3971, regard a single issue and are clearer, deeper, and specific references surrounding the early Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition as to why the archangel Lucifer became an enemy to God and specific events which led up to and resulted in his Fall (expulsion) from Heaven. Part of the point is that various theories generated by and then adopted by the later Christian movements are often less detailed than original Christian theology; later religious theories are often less coherent than early theology; and later Christian interpretations have no advantage over the earliest Christian interpretations.

I disagree with your take on early Christian and/or Jewish doctrine but I am staying out of the fight unless you are interested in meeting me half way on format. I really have not gone through your information so I have no firm position concerning your claims other than generalities. I made two conclusions, they are solid and they come in too large of a bundle for me to handle. I debate step by stem if I can. All the info comes out but it is developed slowly and in a coherent way. You have no obligation to agree but that is generally the way I engage.

While I like to examine a specific issue in greater depth to discover how well a specific premise holds up, your debates seem to be a sentence or two that debate many different issues on a very superficial level; considering philosophy, but not much data. I can’t say for sure, but I believe an analysis that goes into greater depth on a subject and it’s context tends to inform us better and more deeply and imparts greater understanding of a specific subject; and is a better way to judge whether a premise is correct than any superficial look.

You sure make a lot of personal commentaries for a person who denounces my doing so. My debates in many cases wind up not going in the way I wish. They become a contest instead of an opportunity to learn but if I am already involved I just stick it out in what ever format I find myself in. I also have a bad habit of descending to whatever level my partner assumes. I almost never go there first but unfortunately follow others there and regret that weakness. I am usually as agreeable and honorable as I am allowed to be. If my "opponent" is respectful I remain such, I almost never initiate anything disrespectful bill will respond in kind.


[/QUOTE]Firstly, I don't see why it is important for us to always be seeking some advantage over another person. Discussions that are collaborations are, I think, the most efficient way to examine any premise, especially a historical premise. [/quote] This is a perfect example. You mentioned your historical pre-eminence over me first, not the other way around. I think my response was more respectful than what I responded to. I think I can keep up with you historically, but I never would have volunteered that determination without being prompted by your doing so.

Secondly, If you noticed, we already have debated the historical issue of creation from “nothing”. That debate is over and the forum members have already made their decision and judged between your Christian generalization that matter is made from “nothing” and my historical description of the early Judeo-Christian belief that matter is made from matter.

What? How do you know any of that?

1. How do you know the debate is over?
2. How do you know that everyone has made a firm decision?
3. A universe from nothing is not only a Christian doctrine it is the most prevalent cosmological model. No other model is even close though many weak ones do exist. I did not argue it from a Christian foundation but a scientific one I found most cosmologists subscribe to.
4. We have not had a debate about anything. I think I made one probing response that could be considered a debate but we have not even scratched the surface of anything. I have said nothing to you that was an attempt to fully engage on any subject. Nothing is over. In act it can't be, because no absolute resolution is possible because no proof exists. I have the evidence firmly on my side but the jury can not be but still out.
5. I guarantee you no one has concluded anything in that debate that was any different from what they went into it with. No one in these threads on either side with grant anything beyond a superficial point, ever. If your hear to win, you won't because no one does.
6. My main goals are learning and providing new Christians with justifiable defenses for their faith not victory.

If forum members believe that material things are made from “nothing”, it doesn’t change the historical fact that the early Judeo-Christian textual traditions mainly taught creation from matter. Whether readers believe that the early Christians belief in creation from matter were wrong and the later Christian theories of creation of matter from “nothing” are correct, the historical point doesn’t change. If, tomorrow it is discovered that all things are made from green cheese, it still won't change the early historical descriptions of early Judeo-Christians.

Now this is what I did make a preliminary post or two on. Not on the science but upon your view about doctrine. However it never went any further than the start because I lost track of those posts in your others. My initial investigation combined with what I had already learned shows that the Church taught creation ex-nihilo predominantly from it's very inception. It is debatable but I became convinced you would swamp me with walls of info one after the other so I decided to first see if you could change your formatting a little bit. If not that is fine but there is little point in getting back into any topic in that case.

I never had any interest in debating you at all Robin1. As I pointed out, you and I have already debated your claim that christianity believes matter was created from “nothing” versus my claim that ancient Judeo-Christianity knew that material things were made from matter. I don’t normally care about debates since historical issues are often more objective and dependent upon data than the type of debates you are (at least in this thread) typically involved in.

You and I must have a completely different understanding of what a debate is. Despite my life long habit of reading historical texts obsessively I can grant you may be a better historian but there is no possible way you have viewed as many professional debates as I have. We have never fully debated anything. We never get out of the gate.


This has become only a spinning of wheels. You are not interested in debating me, that is fine. Have a good one.

 

[1robin]

In retrospect, mitigation would have been a better word than absolution. And the above is definitely a plea for mitigation.
In other words, you were appealing to the argument fallacy known as tu quoque. I would have if I would have condemned atheists but affirmed Christians. I did neither. I condemned both but one is obviously more suggestive of a foundational moral flaw than the other. Fallacies are way over used crutches in my opinion. There is nothing whatever fallacious about saying something that produces a little (relatively) evil needs tweaking, reevaluation, or censorship and saying that something that produces massive evils that have no parallels needs an overhaul. I and every engineer in history have used the principle when money is on the line. It works and it has to. If your car is sluggish you get a tune up, if it blows up you need a rebuild. Simplistic. The only question is what constitutes a flaw and a complete meltdown but the massive relative difference is undeniable. I would bet that every death in the bible (I mean just mentioned not from the Jews or God) plus the conquests, plus the crusades (all of them), plus the hundred years war, war of the roses, the IRA, and al the inquisitions (even though half of these were over land and greed not God) combined would not equal what Stalin's atheist utopia did alone (probably not even half).

Glad to. My flippant "God less evil than Stalin" remark was in direct response to
Please explain how in this sentence you were "not discussing God".

I will just assume your right to make a more meaningful point. Your flippant remark has an assumption smuggled in. It assumes God was evil or guilty of something so as to put him in the same category as Stalin who was obviously evil. God was perfectly justified in his actions so your premise is invalid. Your right God is not as evil as Stalin he is infinitely better. They do not even occupy the same moral realm. If you notice I used the word kill not murder because killing can be perfectly justified morally but not murder. Your comment was the equivalent of bringing a stick to a nuclear holocaust in that neither are relevant.

Bear in mind that from where I'm standing god does not exist, so it would be absurd for me to accuse him of murder. The murders are solely down to his earthly followers, who have used their creed to paint the killings as necessary and righteous.

Since I have granted that Christians murdered people (which BTW probably most were not Christians to being with and the rest were being disobedient, that being said I still accepted responsibility and assigned it to my faiths problems because it would not make any difference. Even doing so Christianity has a case of the sniffles and atheism appears to be riddled with terminal cancer in every organ.

You will now, of course, deploy the No True Scotsman defence and declare that the killers were acting outside the tenets of Christianity. In my younger days I had many arguments with committed Marxists, who insisted that Communism was not to blame for atrocities in the Soviet Union because the men who committed them were not practising true Communism. If you find that excuse unconvincing, you will understand how some of us react to your claim that Christianity is not responsible for the homicides committed in its name.

You of course will overly rely on fallacies as a crutch which have no relevance what so ever. That is like saying there are no true facts, no true golf balls, no true motor vehicles. Do you deny reality by calling it a Scotsman fallacy? Are you not truly you? There is a true Christina and there is a standard by which to differentiate them, there is even entire chapters devoted to exhaustively explaining what makes a true Christian and how to tell. However I won't even bother. Let's say there are no truly Christian people but there are truly Christian doctrines, truly Christian actions, truly Christina principles. The crusaders who beheaded thousands of Muslims (whether they were truly Christians or not) violated the most basic, clear, and precise Christian moral demands that exist. How on earth can those action reflect badly on God or the bible? I did not differentiate between the two except in passing so all your predictions were wrong. I accepted all of them done by Christians whether they were done by Christians or pretenders or whether done in complete contradiction to clear doctrine or not. I did so because the relative differences in evil committed per side is so large a few thousand hear or there makes little impact and so why bother nit picking.

You deny God exists. Fine. Then your stuck with only having a religion to pick on. Well, how on God's green earth is a religion responsible for those that defy it even if they are Christians? You do not judge a teacher by those that do not practice the lessons, that do not show up for class, and do not study hard. What they do is no reflection on the teacher.

 

[Clear]

1) Robin1 said : “I believe you cleared this up in a following statement and I withdrew my statement. Your saying your a masters or higher degreed historian? One that is published? I hope so because your claims will take on new light is such is the case.”

When I discussed Lucifers’ evolution from arch angel to enemy of God in posts 3965 through 3971, You first suggested you thought my work on Lucifer was cut and pasted from historical sites. To this point, I replied that IF such sites have the same quotes, then they are quoting from my historical work. I wrote what I posted. As to your next claim that my claims will take on new light if I have a degree or have published : Historical textual witnesses do NOT take on “new light” regardless of whether the person who quotes them is a historian or an unschooled Christian. It does not matter if they are an agnostic, or if they are an an atheist quoting them. Historical textual witnesses stand on their own and are NOT dependent upon their presenter for relevance or for their truth (or falsehood). By the way, when I do cut and paste quotes from others, I try to quote them when I think it is important to do so.



2) Robin1 said “My debates in many cases wind up not going in the way I wish. They become a contest instead of an opportunity to learn but if I am already involved I just stick it out in what ever format I find myself in.“

I’ve seen that your “debates” are more “contests” than debates and I believe you when you say you wish they were different (i.e. more amicable and a more efficient trade of thoughts). Currently, such "contests" often end up being snide and mean and they do not really educate either party, but instead, creates animosity instead of education. . It doesn’t need to be that way, and, that is why I had no interest in your present "contests" and simply skip over them. The only reason I made a comment is that I saw you basing your logic on an incorrectly overgeneralized premise (i.e Christianity believes God creates out of “nothing&#8221. While your subsequent argument might not have stood without claiming this premise, still, the premise was incorrect.

If you are as historically educated in early Christian Theology as you claim, why don’t you simply try describing what was going on with God before creation and relate Gods plan and purposes to evil, and EXPLAIN the role evil played in God’s ultimate plan and then simply let your detractors decide for themselves if evil was justifiable in your model rather than engage in these unending “contests” (as you describe them)? I think that trading veiled insults with its accompanying animosity toward your personal theories is not an efficient way to teach the Gospel, (I assume you'd rather "teach" than engage in "contests").




3) Robin1 said : “This is a perfect example. You mentioned your historical pre-eminence over me first, not the other way around. I think my response was more respectful than what I responded to. I think I can keep up with you historically, but I never would have volunteered that determination without being prompted by your doing so.”

This is an interesting description. I cannot tell if anything I said should have created this response in you or if it is a personality trait in you that caused you to interpret events this way. Perhaps I said something that made you think I feel pre-eminent. I don’t feel that way and apologize if I inadvertently did act as though I thought I was "superior" to you.

From where I stand, it was you who first suggested my work on Lucifer was simply cut and pasted from historical sites. I thought this was a slight and thus responded that if you saw my posts on historical sites, you would see that the author was myself. I was not trying to create any “one upmanship” or position of "superiority", but merely to defend my work on Lucifer. (Anyone who reads my historical posts are free to quote them as they wish. No one “owns” historical textual witnesses and anyone can read early Judeo-Christian descriptions of what they believed in prior eras.) Having said this, Perhaps you could consider that such “tit for tats” that contribute to turning your debates into “contests”, might come from your comments as much as from the person you are debating. What I often see in these “contests” is the development of bitterness and animosity. Such feelings often produce a subtle move toward an underlying feeling of anger that, occasionally becomes hatred. This is counterproductive. I honestly believe you that you really would like to "have an amicable conversation" instead of the arguments these interchanges become and that you would like to see all of us able to have that sort of communication.

You admit that you get into “contests” but then “just stick it out”, even when you don’t feel it is an “opportunity to learn” (or to teach). Why not swallow a bit of personal pride and just disengage and concentrate on “teaching” gospel principles instead? Some of those who are debating you seem to have just as good of logic and objectivity as yourself and are perfectly able to handle more data and explanation than you are offering them. If you are able to offer data, perhaps that might put the debates on a different footing. (This is merely a suggestion to try, I honestly don't know if it will be helpful....)

Instead of “contests” and trying to “gain advantage over someone else”, why don’t you try describing in some detail, the earliest and most authentic Christian model of what God was doing and planning before he created and describe God’s plan and the role that evil plays in it. Use the early textual witnesses from Christians who describe these principles in their own words and see if an adequate explanation as to what God's purpose and relationship to evil is, might help others to understand why there is evil in your theological model. They already know that evil in “free agency” alone cannot explain it because, they may assume God could have created a being WITH free agency that did NOT choose to do evil with that agency.

My point is : Instead of simply repeating the claim that “God is good, even if he does evil” in a hundred different ways. They already know this isn't correct and it detracts from your credibility rather than explains the mechanisms underlying why evil exists and any legitimate purpose evil might serve. Why don’t you try and EXPLAIN God’s plan to them, EXPLAIN what GOD was doing before creation and EXPLAIN to them WHY evil exists inside of God’s plan, and EXPLAIN to them the role of evil and allow them to look logically at the entire model and THEN you may find they can use logic and reasoning as well as the rest of us. See if that is helpful to them. Or not.... (I notice that if I give enough information on a subject, the subject and it's parts make more sense, and it is easier to see the logic and rationale of a claim... I didn't get one detractor (so far) in seven sequential posts on the early traditions on the origin of lucifer...so it seems to be fairly efficient - (or no one read it...). I think your use of logic and reason is certainly good enough to try this change in tactic and see if it is helpful.


Whatever you decide to do, I honestly wish you a good journey and progress in this life robin1


Clear
σεειακακτωω

 

[johnhanks]

I would have [appealed to the tu quoque fallacy] if I would have condemned atheists but affirmed Christians. I did neither. I condemned both...

... which is what tu quoque means ...

... but one is obviously more suggestive of a foundational moral flaw than the other ... I would bet that every death in the bible (I mean just mentioned not from the Jews or God) plus the conquests, plus the crusades (all of them), plus the hundred years war, war of the roses, the IRA, and al the inquisitions (even though half of these were over land and greed not God) combined would not equal what Stalin's atheist utopia did alone (probably not even half).

You never did get round to answering my previous questions: is someone who murders five children exactly half as evil as someone who murders ten? Suppose the number each has murdered reflects not the limit of their intent but the limit that circumstances allowed?

Your flippant remark has an assumption smuggled in. It assumes God was evil or guilty of something so as to put him in the same category as Stalin who was obviously evil.

Robin, it was you, not me, who instigated the comparison between god's homicides and Stalin's:

Originally posted by 1robin
Even God himself killed less people in 5000 years than Stalin did in a single year.

I merely (and, yes, flippantly) drew the obvious inference. Why did you make the comparison in the first place, if as you now claim they are not comparable?

You of course will overly rely on fallacies as a crutch which have no relevance what so ever.

So fallacies in an argument have no bearing on its force? It isn't just the fallacies that weaken your case, it's the floundering way you've been deploying them, clutching at any straw you think will get you off the hook. (You want your metaphors properly mixed? Go to johnhanks!)

Your case so far (caricatured, of course, but recognisable):

1. Sure, Christians have killed people in God's name, but non-Christians have killed more (so the homicidal Christians bear less guilt)
2. And anyway, the Christians who killed people were "probably most not Christians to being with and the rest were being disobedient", so True Christians have never killed people in God's name (even though the killers thought of themselves as True Christians and represented mainstream Christianity at the time)
3. We know the homicidal non-True-Christians were disobedient because the bible never tells you to kill people
4. And the bible verses that do tell you to kill people don't count because the people they tell you to kill have it coming
5. And the people God himself killed had it coming too
6. And anyway, God didn't kill as many people as Stalin
7. GOTO 1

 

[god allah joshua]

Does god know how he came to be? Does he remember his parents? Why does he create children? To be his equal? Do you remember your pre-existences? Where is the glory but in death and reunion even if your the only god you know in another universe.

 

[JM2C]

Does god know how he came to be? Does he remember his parents? Why does he create children? To be his equal? Do you remember your pre-existences? Where is the glory but in death and reunion even if your the only god you know in another universe.

It is a sad thing really, why do children die?
Watching the news lately and seeing those kids lying there helpless with their wounds and dying from it makes you ask the same question, why do children die? No parent should have to bury their kids.

 

[johnhanks]

You deny God exists. Fine. Then your stuck with only having a religion to pick on.

Pick on? Pick on? What, I'm now some huge all-powerful bully picking on poor, defenceless little Christianity? Robin, please spare us the cowering persecuted victim act: Christianity is one of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions on the planet, so portraying it as being picked on is bathetic in the extreme.

Well, how on God's green earth is a religion responsible for those that defy it even if they are Christians? You do not judge a teacher by those that do not practice the lessons, that do not show up for class, and do not study hard. What they do is no reflection on the teacher.

A poor analogy. The students who do not practice the lessons, show up for class or study hard do not simultaneously believe and proclaim themselves to be the true upholders of the teacher's standards, nor can they quote extracts from the teacher's rule book to justify their actions.

If anyone replies to this or previous posts, there won't be a response in the near future as I'm going to be offline for a week or two. If there's any urgent picking on to be done in my absence, no doubt someone can fill in for me.

 

[Clear]

Robin1 said : “You deny God exists. Fine. Then your stuck with only having a religion to pick on.”

Johnhanks replied : Pick on? Pick on? What, I'm now some huge all-powerful bully picking on poor, defenceless little Christianity? Robin, please spare us the cowering persecuted victim act:


Robin1, you observe that you try to stay above petty barbs as a response. Yet your communication is full of such irrelevant provocations that cause irrelevant and useless arguments and unneeded frustration. This is counterproductive on many levels.

1) The effect of mis-characterizations and pre-emptive but incorrect claims

Robin1, Even though I disagree with Johnhanks on our differing base position of the existence of God, I think Johnhanks is correct that you who more consistently mis-characterize the instigator of certain points of debate. For example : You blame Johnhanks for his reference to "God less evil than Stalin" whereas you FIRST created and used this example yourself. This is not the only example of your doing this same thing. And it is not going un-noticed by readers.

The problem with mis-characterizations and mis-placed blame is that when one does them once, it is seen as a simple mistake. We all tend to do this from time to time, especially in the midst of frustations, but when it becomes habitual, then it is often seen as an intentional maneuver to “gain advantage” and to color one’s opponent while being the manipulator.

Robin1 : Obviously, I cannot speak for the other forum readers, but As a Christian theist (who agrees with you on the base issue of the existence of God but is on the opposite side of the aisle from non-theists on the issue of basic belief in a God), I have to say that the non-theists (and the many others) who point out your mischaracterizations of them in your examples are correct. If you cannot defend your theories based on correct and objective data, then obvious mischaracterizations are not doing you any good.

While, unfortunately, mischaracterizations works in political debates, it is not something a Christian who values truth should engage in.



2) Intentional mischaracterizations also reflect upon and affects our credibility.

If we habitually mischaracterize, then we lose credibility to some extent. Once we lose credibility, then the basis for relevance in valid argument is undercut. For example, if both the non-theist Johnhanks and you make equally plausible but incompatible statements in the future, I might opine that Johnhanks is probably the correct one, simply because he is more credible. I might feel that I have not seen him mischaracterize or “stretch the truth” as often or as much. The loss of credibility is an incredibly severe handicap that one can rarely overcome once it is lost.




3) When an argument is Lost : The conclusions of philosophical versus Factual disagreements

One problem with arguing personal logic versus arguing factual data

There is a reason that I suggested that you try to move your debates to factual data, rather than logical and rational philosophizing over your personal theories, in this case, specifically your theory of God and Evil and any connection (if any) between the two.

For me, the debate between you and the detractors of your theory has been over for a long time. I think they have shown again and again that your personal theory of God and evil inside your theory of ex-nihilo creation cannot divest God of responsibility for evil in the world.

If nothing but God exists, and evil exists after God creates (and he is omniscient and omnipotent in the most common manner modern Christians use the words), and then evil exists after he creates, then something he did caused and created the condition in which evil exists. (I am speaking specifically of this point INSIDE YOUR THEORY OF EX-NIHILO CREATION - this does not apply inside of the early Christian tradition of creation from matter and inside the theory that other things existed besides God)

Your continual arguments about petty and irrelevant issues and arguments cannot divest God as a source of evil inside your present theory, regardless of how long your argue. You will either have to abandon your modern theory of ex-nihilo creation and turn to an earlier Christian tradition and model (which can divest God from the source of evil) or turn to another argument. Your detractors have already won this argument.

This is what I was referring to in the point as to the historical points as to whether early Christian believed in ex-nihilo creation, and in the historical point as to the most famous ancient tradition regarding the fall of Lucifer from heaven. Once these are show to be factual and true points, then your philosophical disagreements to facts become irrelevant. Those arguments are over, you just didn’t recognize it.

I think you will have better success if you change your basis of argument from philosophical theories to a more objective basis of factual history (since you said you had a significant background in religious history).

In dealing with facts, It is much clearer to judge an argument, much earlier in conclusion to make a tentative judgment as to whether one is correct or one is making a mistake. If I argue the fact as to whether the sun came up this morning, a simple look outside the window may be sufficient to show that I am correct or I am in error. In your philosophical arguments, you may not know when you have been beaten or not.

Philosophers and non-theists have argued over this point for hundreds of years without any greater success that you are having. Why don’t you stop this specific argument (it’s actually over and has been once one theorizes nothing existing besides God before creation and then ex-nihilo (i.e. creation from nothing) as the manner of creation). If you had chosen early Christian traditions as your religious theory, the debate might have gone differently.

Obviously, this is simply my opinion, but I think the agnostics and non-theists have beaten up your current model pretty badly.

Though the debate about ex-nihilo creation existing in early christian tradition is over, I am interested in a point you made about ex-nihilo.




4) THE CLAIM THAT EX-NIHILO IS A (THE) MAJOR SCIENTIFIC THEORY ON THE ORIGIN OF MATTER

Did you mention at one point that you thought creation ex-nihilo was actually the model of most scientists? IF this is correct, then this is quite a change in science and I would like to know about it. You might know a lot more than I on this specific subject.

I admit that, though I have some science in my background, I’ve not heard such a claim before. Can you tell me about this point? For example, as a start can you give me an example of a scientist that uses ex-nihilo as a basis for a scientific theory regarding matter and describe their theory of origin of matter and how they use it? Can you provide some of his quotes as to why he believes this and how he believes he discovered this scientific theory was correct? I grew up with the scientific law that matter can be changed into different forms, but is not created nor destroyed so this point you made is new to me.

If creation from "nothing" actually IS a predominant scientific theory, then it is quite interesting to know about.


Clear
σετωτζνεσιω

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well then you might want to tell me who did this and when? If in 800Bc Israel it was justifiable. In 1800AD united states it was not. I am not saying that evil practitioners of demonology or voodoo are any more or less guilty or deserving of death today but that we are not tasked with judging them and have not been for 2000 plus years. The moral truths have not changed but the methodology by which they are enacted has with God's plans and purposes. So if specific you need to supply specific details. I condemn the inquisition, many of the acts of the crusades (most in fact), maybe half of what Cortez did, the IRA, the British colonial actions, etc..... I always accept Christian responsibility for these acts whether or not atheists will accept the responsibility of atheism for the order of magnitude greater atrocities, even though they have nothing to do with God or the bible. Christians are at fault not God or the bible.

I gave you specifics. I'm talking about the Inquisition, and I gave you specific Bible quotes:

Exodus 22:18

"Do not allow a sorceress to live."

Leviticus 20:27

"Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense."

The atrocities they committed were based on Bible verses. Kinda makes it easier to commit atrocities when you think god's on your side - that's the point.

 

[CG Didymus]

Pick on? Pick on? What, I'm now some huge all-powerful bully picking on poor, defenceless little Christianity? Robin, please spare us the cowering persecuted victim act: Christianity is one of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions on the planet, so portraying it as being picked on is bathetic in the extreme.
A poor analogy. The students who do not practice the lessons, show up for class or study hard do not simultaneously believe and proclaim themselves to be the true upholders of the teacher's standards, nor can they quote extracts from the teacher's rule book to justify their actions.

If anyone replies to this or previous posts, there won't be a response in the near future as I'm going to be offline for a week or two. If there's any urgent picking on to be done in my absence, no doubt someone can fill in for me.

Hey, you can't take a vacation now. We need you.

But you know what? I disagree with you the teacher analogy is perfect.

The Righteous Teacher, "Okay, I'm going to be gone for an hour or so... or all day. None of you know when I'll be back, so be good. You all know the assignment read your history book and do a three page essay. In the teacher's lounge, there's some beer and pretzels. That's forbidden. It's for us teachers. Some snake of a kid tried to smuggle some pot into school. I confiscated it and hid under some papers in the open top drawer of my desk. Don't touch it. You'll get expelled, maybe even cursed. Remember, my ten simple rules. I'm the boss. Don't talk. Don't chew gum. Don't play on Saturday. That's the day you should devote to doing your homework. And I know some of you worship those evil rock and roll stars like Billy Idol. But I'm telling you no Billy Idol worship or any other rock and roll music in class. It's evil and will get you suspended or cursed. See you kids later. Remember, I am coming back."

One kid said, "Wait, that was only five."

"Oh, don't cheat or peek at your neighbors paper. And a... I'm the boss and the sole authority in class, or, as far as you're concerned, the universe. So I want you to do as I say and, thus, you would get in trouble. And a... raise your hand when you have questions... look straight ahead. Don't stare out the window and daydream. Is that ten yet?"

"We lost track."

"Well you better listen better next time, shouldn't you. Okay bye, see you soon... er or later."

Three kids did the assignment, then got picked on by the rest of the kids. Ten kids read the wrong chapter, but they swore it was the right one. Fourteen kids put some loud music on Pandora, thus opening up a whole bunch of evil. At least they didn't listen to Billy Idol. The girls listened mostly to Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. A couple of guys tried to blast them out of the room with Ozzy Osbourne and AC/DC, but were forced by the others put on their headphones. One kid put on Justin Bieber on his I-phone, but the other kids smashed the phone and beat him up.

A short time later, the teacher peeked in through the window. He whispered to the three good students. "Get out, I'm going to destroy the classroom. Get out now." The good kids believed in his words and faithfully obeyed his command. The teacher sealed all the doors and windows and connected a fire hose to a vent in the roof. He flooded the whole class killing everything including some lab rats and a guinea pig. The next day he drained the class room, had the janitor mop the floor and remove the bodies and resumed class with the three good students.

A week later only one of kids was still good, so he had to find a new and creative way to get rid of the other two students. He sent them to Driver's Ed and told them to drive up the hill behind the school and to hit the gas pedal and try as long as they could to not use the brakes. Of course he had cut the brake lines. The car went over a cliff and exploded, killing the two kids.

The next semester that one good kid moved on to the next grade. He was appalled by what he saw. He told the kids, "Your teacher isn't that good. He's teaching you falsehoods, and he's not teaching you discipline."

"What's that? Discipline? In school? And teaching falsehoods? I thought everything they teach us in class is the truth?"

"No, only my teacher knows the real truth. If you want to learn, he is the only way to get truth in your life."

"But isn't discipline infringing on our freewill? What if we still what to play around in class and shoot spit wads at each other?"

"No, teacher absolutely doesn't want a bunch of robot students. You'll still have total freewill. He will give you every opportunity to choose his right way. The only real way. The only sensible way. The only way that doesn't lead to death and destruction... or, to go you're own way. Which is the broad highway straight to hell. But, yeah, it's your choice. He won't force anything on you."

One of the kids said, "Huh, sounds good. What do you all think?"

Twenty five out of the thirty students said, "We don't really want that."

The original good kid, plus the five new good students quietly slipped out of the class room and locked the door behind them. They walked over to the music department and got six autoharps and then played them through the schools PA system for five straight hours. At exactly five minutes before recess time, the room collapsed and killed all the bad students.

The good teacher was brought in and those six students did really well... well almost. Two of students had to be killed, but it was for their own good. They were caught smoking in the boys room. But, the remaining four moved on through the goodwill and grace and loving kindness of the good teacher. Who always made sure, to leave a remnant.

 

[1robin]

1) Robin1 said : “I believe you cleared this up in a following statement and I withdrew my statement. Your saying your a masters or higher degreed historian? One that is published? I hope so because your claims will take on new light is such is the case.”

As to your next claim that my claims will take on new light if I have a degree or have published : H[/I]istorical textual witnesses do NOT take on “new light” regardless of whether the person who quotes them is a historian or an unschooled Christian. It does not matter if they are an agnostic, or if they are an an and atheist quoting them. Historical textual witnesses stand on their own and are NOT dependent upon their presenter for relevance or for their truth (or falsehood). By the way, when I do cut and paste quotes from others, I try to quote them when I think it is important to do so.

To take on a new light is not a defined criteria for a specific objective issue. It only suggests that in the readers opinion you have more credibility with a degree than without. No one can argue with that principle which is why when money is on the line and workable solutions must be found a degree is almost a necessity in most cases. It is perfectly appropriate to value the words of a degreed authority more than a non-degreed authority. Else why would anyone get a degree? So IMO (the only one that is relevant) your words have more meaning to me given a degree than lacking one. Does not make them any more right or wrong but more apt to be such in my opinion, and pretty much the same in every company and university on earth.

I’ve seen that your “debates” are more “contests” than debates and I believe you when you say you wish they were different (i.e. more amicable and a more efficient trade of thoughts). Currently, such "contests" often end up being snide and mean and they do not really educate either party, but instead, creates animosity instead of education.

Given that the issues on the table are among the most controversial and heated in human history I just take them as they come and could not really demand anything more except when they get way out of hand and you will see me censor myself and/or discontinue discussions when militant views are all that is offered if you reviewed my posts significantly.

If you are as historically educated in early Christian Theology as you claim, why don’t you simply try describing what was going on with God before creation and relate Gods plan and purposes to evil, and EXPLAIN the role evil played in God’s ultimate plan and then simply let your detractors decide for themselves if evil was justifiable in your model rather than engage in these unending “contests” (as you describe them)?

I claim I am well versed in military history, competent in history in general, and familiar with Christian theological history. However it is quite another matter altogether to guess at what God was doing before creation. That is wholly unavailable to historical study. I have given every conceivable explanation of purpose, intent, divine command theory, moral ontology, etc...... dealing with God and creation hat is made available but I do not find myself in an argument based on logic in most cases (in fact philosophers in general no longer even see a problem with God and the existence of evil these days) but instead I have to contend with preference and emotion.

This is an interesting description. I cannot tell if anything I said should have created this response in you or if it is a personality trait in you that caused you to interpret events this way. Perhaps I said something that made you think I feel pre-eminent. I don’t feel that way and apologize if I inadvertently did act as though I thought I was "superior" to you.

It is not important.

From where I stand, it was you who first suggested my work on Lucifer was simply cut and pasted from historical sites. I thought this was a slight and thus responded that if you saw my posts on historical sites, you would see that the author was myself. I was not trying to create any “one upmanship” or position of "superiority", but merely to defend my work on Lucifer. (Anyone who reads my historical posts are free to quote them as they wish. No one “owns” historical textual witnesses and anyone can read early Judeo-Christian descriptions of what they believed in prior eras.) Having said this, Perhaps you could consider that such “tit for tats” that contribute to turning your debates into “contests”, might come from your comments as much as from the person you are debating.

What I often see in these “contests” is the development of bitterness and animosity. Such feelings often produce a subtle move toward an underlying feeling of anger that, occasionally becomes hatred. This is counterproductive. I honestly believe you that you really would like to "have an amicable conversation" instead of the arguments these interchanges become and that you would like to see all of us able to have that sort of communication.

After decades of experience my instincts are quite honed but not perfect. It appears I misjudged your posts, I can let it rest there.

You admit that you get into “contests” but then “just stick it out”, even when you don’t feel it is an “opportunity to learn” (or to teach). Why not swallow a bit of personal pride and just disengage and concentrate on “teaching” gospel principles instead? Some of those who are debating you seem to have just as good of logic and objectivity as yourself and are perfectly able to handle more data and explanation than you are offering them. If you are able to offer data, perhaps that might put the debates on a different footing. (This is merely a suggestion to try, I honestly don't know if it will be helpful....)

Because my primary purpose can still be carried out. beyond being born again the greatest help to my faith has been men of knowledge who shared answers to tough questions. Most new Christians do not know where to go to find those same answers so I try and at least provide hope answers exist. That is done more efficiently in a civil debate, but is still performed in a less civil one. Part of growing in knowledge about faith to appreciate the emotional basis that my opponents argue from in many cases. I need to know what the answer is but it also helps to know the motivation behind a supposed "problem".

Instead of “contests” and trying to “gain advantage over someone else”, why don’t you try describing in some detail, the earliest and most authentic Christian model of what God was doing and planning before he created and describe God’s plan and the role that evil plays in it. Use the early textual witnesses from Christians who describe these principles in their own words and see if an adequate explanation as to what God's purpose and relationship to evil is, might help others to understand why there is evil in your theological model. They already know that evil in “free agency” alone cannot explain it because, they may assume God could have created a being WITH free agency that did NOT choose to do evil with that agency.

The area of concentration you name is also the area which has the least reliable information available. I can supply some basics of the form if X then Y and do so constantly but I tend to stick with more evidenced subjects like moral ontology.

My point is : Instead of simply repeating the claim that “God is good, even if he does evil” in a hundred different ways. They already know this isn't correct and it detracts from your credibility rather than explains the mechanisms underlying why evil exists and any legitimate purpose evil might serve. Why don’t you try and EXPLAIN God’s plan to them, EXPLAIN what GOD was doing before creation and EXPLAIN to them WHY evil exists inside of God’s plan, and EXPLAIN to them the role of evil and allow them to look logically at the entire model and THEN you may find they can use logic and reasoning as well as the rest of us. See if that is helpful to them. Or not.... (I notice that if I give enough information on a subject, the subject and it's parts make more sense, and it is easier to see the logic and rationale of a claim... I didn't get one detractor (so far) in seven sequential posts on the early traditions on the origin of lucifer...so it seems to be fairly efficient - (or no one read it...). I think your use of logic and reason is certainly good enough to try this change in tactic and see if it is helpful.

I have never claimed that God is good even if he does evil because that is an incoherent statement. God is the moral locus of the universe if he exists. Whatever he did would become moral truth by his doing it according to divine command theory. Our pathetic judgments about what is evil or good have no relevance to God if he exists, and no basis for a single moral belief actually being also true, if he does not. BTW the arguments I use are identical to the ones used in professional debates by philosophers with more degrees that the two of us combined. I feel like I am in good company and have originated few of the points I have illustrated myself. 80% of every argument I make comes directly from revered scholars.

Whatever you decide to do, I honestly wish you a good journey and progress in this life robin1

You too. My actual debates many times less words than this non-debate has.

 

[1robin]

I gave you specifics. I'm talking about the Inquisition, and I gave you specific Bible quotes:

I must have posted 20,000 words at least on the Inquisition(s).

Exodus 22:18

"Do not allow a sorceress to live."

I responded to this one in particular quite a bit when you posted it.

Leviticus 20:27

"Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense."

The atrocities they committed were based on Bible verses. Kinda makes it easier to commit atrocities when you think god's on your side - that's the point.

I stated exhaustively why your determination of atrocity I sonly possible if you first strip God of the entire context he comes with. If you include it as you should then the sorceresses are easily seen to be the ones who committed atrocities not those who judged them. Has everything I posted about the context where these verses exist evaporated already?


Let me ask you this, given that it is almost a virtual universal agreement that some actions merit death over human history, in general. If any act deserves death, would not an act committed against the conduit for salvation by being in league with mankind's greatest enemy and the furtherance of his aims to separate us from heaven, love, and eternal peace not be such a crime? Hitler was bad and maybe as high as 98% of us would say he deserved death but he only wanted land and hated the Jews. He was not trying to separate your soul from heaven for eternity. The term witch, sorceress, etc... did not exist in the OT. Since I am the only one interested in what they meant then take what I said as being what they meant (I already provided the evidence for what they meant in detail). They meant those who had surrendered to the power of evil and had become enemies to God and man. What would you do, send these people to Freud? give them Ritalin? or maybe pass a law that said I am responsible for their healthcare?