smith

Follow

Comment history

Loving God

If I can't even get you to address the things that I've written, why should I give you the courtesy of even considering your position. jonas
-----------------------------------------------------------

But I have addressed them, it is just that I address things differently than you are used to. I address them at the level of presuppositions and what can make something intelligible within a worldview.
=====================================

To be honest, I'm not that concerned with critiquing your faith in god. I don't really have the urge to call you wrong. The problem is that you are calling ME wrong, and there isn't anything I can say, other than blindly agreeing with you, that will make you say that I might not be. jonas
-------------------------------------------------------------

I am not trying to get you to blindly agree with me, but to see that you are blindly agreeing with others and presuppositions with what you believe. You have accepted certain positions and are not looking at the presuppositions of those things which must be true if the positions are true.
=====================================

If you can factually disprove my assertions, without relying on some intangible, Cartesian level of philosophical doubt, then I'll give you credence enough to consider the necessity of adopting your position.
jonas
------------------------------------------------------------------

But I am not relying on some intangible, Cartesian level of philosophical doubt. I am trying to go to the underlying presuppositions that you are relying on and perhaps have swallowed without looking at them. That is what it means to examine a worldview to see if it is consistent within itself.
====================================

Logic is, at its core, the idea that if something works one way thirty times, it will do it the the thirty-first as well. That is something that you can simply observe, and remember. jason
----------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to be so disagreeable and all, but that is not logic. Logic is essentially the science of argumentation by which arguments are presented in such a way that if the premisses are true the conclusion is necessarily true. That is distinguished from invalid arguments that have a bad form.

January 31, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

Then, please, take your own viewpoint, and explain to us how it can be rational and logical, or even consistent. In short, apply the same standards of deduction and base to tip consistency that you demand from every veiwpoint other than your own. jonas
----------------------------------------------------------------

Great. My worldview is that there is a God that has created all things and is sovereign over them. Without those basic presuppositions, nothing else can really be explained in a consistent way. We all look at what is in the world and try to explain how it got here. How can we explain how rationality arrived on this planet and how is it possible to use it in an organized way? Naturalism offers no hope for rationality at all. But the Being who is all wisdom and knowledge as well as sovereign does because He has a rational being created man in His own image.

On the other hand, naturalism cannot even provide a consistent account of what is rational and how we could know anything at all. So everytime a person uses rationality to try to explain God away that person is inconsistent with his or her own worldview. Rationality is not consistent from a totally naturalistic worldview.

The same things can be repeated with morality and meaning for anything and meaning for life. Naturalism has no basis to offer for morality or meaning or meanings in life and so cannot use those to argue for its position. However, the Christian can. While admittedly many people that claim to be Christians have given it a bad name by wrong behavior, that is not an argument against what it really is.

The reason that I do not accept what you call facts from your position is that I am looking underneath that information and asking how they can be facts and if you could possibly know that they are facts from your worldview. It is, in other words, going to the very basis of everything in an effort to discover what is really there. After all, if one wants to argue against the existence of God, that is what they must do. So I am simply calling you on your positions by going to the very roots of those ideas.

January 31, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

Actually, I take that back. You provide some basis for your viewpoint first. You have continuously steered the conversation back into an offensive position, over and over again, and have not allowed critiques of your own position to be delved into in any meaningful way.
Jonas
-----------------------------------------------------------

Until your worldview can allow for morality, knowledge, and meaning, it is not possible for your worldview to critique anything in a meaningful way. That is what I am trying to show you. With the naturalistic worldview you have no way of critiquing any other worldview. Your system of thought has necessary presuppositions that will always conflict with offering any substantive critique of any position that requires morality, reason, or meaning. I realize that this can be frustrationg from a person with that worldview that does not recognize that part of his or her worldview yet. However, when you start to offer a critique of my position with something that is not consistent with your worldview, that needs to be dealt with first. There is no way to deal with just facts, because we approach those differently because of our basic presuppositions.
====================================

Until you do that, we're not really even having a conversation, unless you count an explanation, followed by a retort of "sorry, you're wrong," repeated ad infinitum to be a conversation. And I don't. Jonas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, and here I thought it was your side that was doing that. When I tell you that your position does not have a basis for using reason or morality to critique my position, then I am discussing with argumentation. When I say that you are wrong in what you are asserting about my position, then I am using argumentation. Again, I understand that this may be different than you are used to, but that does not make it less than a real position. I simply ask questions about what must be true (what presuppositions you are operating on) in order for what you say to be true (conditions for intelligibility).

For example, if you say that there cannot be a God because He cannot be omni-benevolent and omnipotent at the same time, I must ask what is meant by those two attributes and of what basis you have within your worldview for asserting that morality and applying it to some concept of God. Instead of arguing with the exact langauge you use, I assert that those things are inconsistent with your worldview. That means that you are borrowing from my worldview to try to prove yours.

January 31, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

"Indeed, apart from the character of a holy God the discussion of ethics is meaningless. Then again, ethics is meaningless apart from holiness."

You have not adequately proved this or supported it. Try again.

I mean, try for the first time. jonas
--------------------------------------------------------------

From your apparent worldview, you can prove nothing to anyone including yourself if you follow it consistently. With your apparent set of presuppositions, you will not accept what is real proof and presuppose them out of evidence by your own sheer fiat. You have not provided any basis for morality or rationality from your worldview. Why don't you prove that rationality or morality are consistent within your worldview?

January 30, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

This is basically the concept of God and religion that I was taught as a child...and it's no different than the concepts that many Protestant religions teach:

I am God! You must worship me! You must love me!
You must glorify me...that is the whole point of your existence crazyks
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand your pain at these points. However, I hear His tone as different than yours. Perhaps, as you point out below, your life experiences have altered how you hear the tone of the voice behind those words. What is those were commands of love because that is the very best thing for human beings? There is no source of love in the universe apart from God. So a command to love God is in line with what man's created purpose is which is to share in the delight and joy of God Himself. Every now and then I will walk up to a child of mine and command them in a gruff voice to eat a piece of candy that I have for them. Is that mean? God created us for Himself and commands us to love Him which He alone can give. Is that cruel to command people to love that which is what they were created for and which is best for them?
===================================
And if you don't do those things, then...
You will go to hell and suffer torment forever! crazyks
------------------------------------------------------------

If a person rejects the love of God, then what do they expect but to go to a place where there is no love at all.
=====================================

How does that equate to any kind of "love"?

I had a relationship with a man that was basically like that. And it was no kind of "love", believe me.
crazyks
-------------------------------------------------------------------

But you are not putting sin into the equation. God is not obligated in any way to love sinners with His highest love which is Himself. If people do not want that love and reject Him with hatred, then how does that obligate Him in any way? His ending people to eternal torment is a love for justice and holiness. So it really is love but just not for a human being at that point.

January 30, 2007 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

And I still don't understand why, if I have supposed free will now, I should be held responsible in any way, or have to suffer in any way, for the choices that my ancestors made. That just doesn't seem fair, does it?
crazyks
-------------------------------------------------------------------

It is perfectly just and fair, though your are probably using the word "fair" more like I am using the term "just." Fairness just means equal and if all are fallen in Adam then it is certainly equal. So I think you are asking if it is just. I think it is very just.

If God set up the human scenario with Adam as a federal head or representative of all humanity, the only real question about justice is if Adam would be a proper choice to represent all. If God knew that all would fall given the same circumstances, or if He knew that Adam who was created without sin and would still fall, then it is a perfectly just situation. All human beings sin and fall short of the glory of God over and over again every day. In that we show that we are doing things like Adam and would do them if we were the head.

Apart from operating along the lines of a federal head, I fail to see how anyone could be saved by Jesus Christ. For example, when the angels fell (became demons) they were never given a Redeemer. One sin and they were lost forever. If we all fell into sin seperately, then we would all have to be saved seperately. Since humanity fell in a federal head or representative, Jesus Christ can save all who will be saved by acting as their head. So Christ can die once and all who will be saved will be saved. If people reject Adam as a federal head, then they must logically reject Christ as their head as well.

This is basically the concept of God and religion that I was taught as a child...and it's no different than the concepts that many Protestant religions teach:

I am God!
You must worship me!
You must love me!
You must glorify me...that is the whole point of your existence!

And if you don't do those things, then...
You will go to hell and suffer torment forever!

How does that equate to any kind of "love"?

I had a relationship with a man that was basically like that. And it was no kind of "love", believe me.

January 30, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

In your view, God created people. In your view, I assume you believe that God is all-knowing, all-powerful.

God created mankind. God created mankind with free will. God created sin...here's a point that you haven't covered...because if God didn't create sin, who did? Where did it come from? crazyks
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed God created mankind, but He did not create man with free will. Free will is a myth of epoch proportions. However, if all you mean by that is that God does not force people to do certain things, then we can agree on that. I would call that free agency in that sense. However, sin was not created by anyone and is not a thing in and of itself. Sin has no ontological being. Sin is something a moral agent does. Sin is actually the absence of holiness rather than the presence of something in and of itself. So sin happens when human beings choose to do something that is not for the glory of God.
=================================

Regardless, God created mankind. God knew that sin existed. Otherwise, there would have been no point in warning Adam and Eve to leave the damn fruit alone. Because he knew that then they would learn all the other things. crazyks
----------------------------------------------------------------

If God created mankind, and knew sin existed, and he's all-knowing and all-powerful, then didn't he know what was bound to happen? crazyks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course He knew what would happen. Are you saying that He should have created them as robots and made them perform actions apart from human choice?
====================================

January 30, 2007 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

Hence the invalidity of some opinions expressed here. Without an understanding of the concept of 'holiness', the discussion fast becomes meaningless. 75x55
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, apart from the character of a holy God the discussion of ethics is meaningless. Then again, ethics is meaningless apart from holiness.
====================================

I thought it was in reference to something having a lot of holes? kodiac
-------------------------------------------------------------

I am somewhat sorry for doing this kodiac, but I am not going to resist this one. Without holiness one cannot have a whole ethics. So to try to have an ethic apart from holiness and the holiness of God is to have holes in ones ethics and logic.

January 29, 2007 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

The answer is an ethics outside of the bible, an ethics that exists in all human beings. yourworstnightmare
--------------------------------------------------------------------

But again, there is not basis for or obligation for ethics apart from God. Humanity wants to have ethics, but people all want ethics based on their own selfish desires and opinions. Apart from God there is no real reason for ethics. The naturalistic worldview cannot provide any real basis for ethics.
=====================================

I will grant you that this ethos is expressed in many parts of the bible, but it is not derived from the bible.

This ethos is derived from reason, observation of reality, and from a shared empathy among human beings. yourworstnightmare
--------------------------------------------------------------

Naturalism cannot account for reason or knowledge. Empathy cannot be a basis for ethics. It simply says if I feel a certain way then I will behave toward others a certain way. But again, it provides no obligation or basis.
===================================

At base, that empathy could derrive from "I would not want that to happen to me and mine".
yourworstnightmare
-----------------------------------------------------------

But that is essentially an ethic based on what I would want to happen to me. So if I would want to be murdered if X happened to me, then it is okay to murder another person. As stated, and apart from other basic moral issues as flow from the character of God, that ethic can be used as an excuse to do anything.
====================================

I guess Kant called it the "categorical imperative".
yourworstnightmare
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ant gave five different versions of his "categorical imperative." It has been said that they were based on the biblical "Golden Rule." The Golden Rule in the Bible is really a restatment of love your neighbor as yourself which flows out of a love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. In other words, that can only be kept in reality if one is loving God. Apart from that, it becomes a selfish and self-centered way to do what I want.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

January 29, 2007 at 5:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Loving God

smith, your writings make no logical sense. Just because you write something doesn't mean it is a logical response. yourworstnightmare
--------------------------------------------------------------

I would agree that just because any person writes something does not in and of itself make it logical in that sense of the word. I think you need to take your own words to heart. However, remember that each of us is writing from within a certain worldview. What you write at times is so far from being logical that it gives me the pleasure of a smile. So I recognize that you believe that my writings are not logic. But remember, I am trying to get you to see that from your worldview the use of logic is not logical.
==================================

Our morality does not derive from the bible. Modern xtians follow some things said in the bible and do not follow others. yourworstnightmare
-------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, I am not arguing that morality of moderns come from the Bible. I am arguing that apart from the Christian God there is no possiblility of a basis for and an obligation to be moral.
===================================

The question is, what ethics and morality led to their choosing? What system of ethics do xtians follow to decide that they will follow some of god's words but not others? yourworstnightmare
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Faith and/or belief in God from the historical Christian perspective is not just a simple belief. It is the deepest conviction that is in the soul. There are many that believe in God as something that flits around in the brain, but the deep conviction based on many things is the issue. True morality is not just following a system of rules, but it is to love all things for the sake of God and His glory who is to be loved above all things.
====================================

January 29, 2007 at 5:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous