|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 6, 2016 1:30:19 GMT -5
Shame on you. Shame on you and anyone else who believes a healthy fetus can be legally aborted. Shame on you, LEE.
Shame on you, when you have no idea what is happening in other people's lives yet YOU think that YOU have a right to tell them what to do!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 6, 2016 10:14:06 GMT -5
For the record , there are many atheists who are also prolife so it is obviously not a "religous" issue as much as a moral issue. Do a quick google search "atheists against abortion" alvin
|
|
horror
Junior Member
Pedophilia is a mental disorder you take to the grave (they involves children &non human victims)
Posts: 70
|
Post by horror on Nov 6, 2016 17:10:09 GMT -5
Dear howitis,The the Hillsong missing that one person,sad,but thousands helped by them. A huge amount of their congregation are ex addicts,prisoners,unwanteds,abused,unemployed,etc. They now rejoice in the Lord. Now the other lot we know how many hundreds worldwide victims of criminal CSA,have been helped,remember in our own State one worker 30 known victims the other 13,one just put out,in the near 8 decades of my life,saw so many perpetrators and victims both handled badly,the victims terribly,and me being one of them. Don't not read a book because of its cover,the words written,spoken,read,or sung are the most important. Just listen to Hillsong's anthem "Cornerstone",Stuart Townend's "Communion song",again the words forget the look of the carriers. By the way Hillsong will send you a financial statement on request,2x2s won't.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 6, 2016 17:34:11 GMT -5
For the record , there are many atheists who are also pro-life so it is obviously not a "religious" issue as much as a moral issue. Do a quick google search "atheists against abortion" alvin Also the other way round. There are a lot of religious people who are pro-choice. There is even a Catholic group which is PRO-CHOICE. Pro Faith. Pro Family. Pro Choice.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) is the only national interfaith organization dedicated to reproductive choices, health, rights and justice. For more than 40 years, we have been educating, organizing and advocating wherever faith, policy and our reproductive lives intersect. RCRC’s work stems from religious convictions common to our diverse religious traditions — compassion and love for others and the dignity of all people regardless of color or sex. These convictions distinguish our coalition from secular organizations we ally with to support reproductive choices, health, rights and justice.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 6, 2016 20:02:38 GMT -5
Exactly. Like is the case in so many controversial issues, it is common to support our prejudices of certain "groups"by somehow shifting blame onthat certain "group" we are prejudiced against, as the cause of the problem . e.g.-religous people are to blame for prolife thus causing severe hurt etc. Atheist are to blame for prochoice ..... Generally, it is a group we are not a part of ourselves, that is to "blame". Alvin
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 6, 2016 21:27:50 GMT -5
Lee Why Lee? What are your reasons for opposing abortion?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 6, 2016 22:03:49 GMT -5
Its wrong to arbitrarily take life. People should have to get a court order for an abortion. Conception after rape? No problem. But for conception after consenual sex abortion should be difficult. Every possible means to care for the child should be pursued and if the parents cant it is likely that others can. If no one wants the child that is a sad commentary on the couple who conceived and society in general and in that case it would be better not to be born. In a decent society that would be rare but Im guessing if our society stopped aborting tomorrow our ability to adopt and care for these children would be overwhelmed. Shame on us.
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 6, 2016 23:01:12 GMT -5
I'm guessing that you would like this earth to be paradise. That is not the purpose of this life or earth. That is to come. Would you like a world with no suffering or pain. Robots so to speak devoid of emotions or pain. God did not say there would be no suffering but amidst suffering he is there as a source of emotional comfort. Death is a way out of suffering. Guess God could have made us without any emotions or physical feelings so we would not feel pain or suffering. I'm glad he gave us both. A lot of suffering is man's own doing. Good and evil is God's plan although not ours. If there is suffering in this life then how much more would we like a world were paradise exists. A hope, a purpose. No God means no purpose beyond the suffering of this world. The rain falls on the just and unjust. I already replied to this earlier, but I feel like saying more. So, here goes... Consider the following premises (assuming God exists in the first place): * God is maximally knowledgeable * God is maximally powerful * God is maximally good (moral) * It is bad (immoral) for any moral agent (M1) to allow another moral agent (M2) to suffer when M1 has no adequate justification for not stopping the suffering. * God is a moral agent * Suffering exists I argue that these premises are incompatible with each other. If God knows about suffering, can do something about it, and is morally obligated to do something about it, then suffering should not exist. This seems to indicate that one of the premises is false. I think it's most likely that God isn't good, but I admit that it's possible that God has adequate justification for not stopping the suffering. What might that justification be? It seems unlikely that free will necessitates our ability to harm others, at least to the extent which we can. How can free will justify God's allowance of warfare, genocide, rape, torture, abuse, and a myriad of other things? Similarly, it seems unlikely that the extent of suffering we observe is justified by a need to avoid a robot-like lack of emotions. I'm not convinced that God could not have created a world whose inhabitants could experience a range of emotions without suffering, or at least suffering as much as they do here on Earth. I see no real recourse for the believer but to admit that we simply don't know what reasons God might have for allowing us to suffer. And I see no reason to call God good -- let alone maximally good -- until he can reveal those reasons and demonstrate that he is. About purpose: I believe it's much easier for someone to accept life without a "higher purpose" if they haven't been previously indoctrinated into believing that there is one. Harder to go from theism to atheism than to be raised atheist. But you raise an issue that applies to many believers and non-believers alike, and I've given it some thought. For one thing, it's nice to think that we get to decide what our own purpose is; perhaps the best of our options is to spend our lives improving all aspects of it. Since we are social creatures, this means improving society, improving our environment, and focusing on healthy relationships. Or maybe you have a bucket list to complete. I think it's okay to treat our lives as an experience we'll only have once and try to make the most of it. There's a "reverse" issue of purpose, to consider, also -- if God doesn't exist, how many believers are doing things they might not want to do (or not doing things they might want to do) if they were non-believers? Granted, many believers live a great and fulfilling life regardless of God, but I've also heard many previously believing non-believers express great regret about time and resources they regard as wasted. In the end, though, what we think about our purpose (and what it ought to be) doesn't answer the question of whether God exists or not.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 6, 2016 23:53:22 GMT -5
Its wrong to arbitrarily take life. People should have to get a court order for an abortion. Conception after rape? No problem. But for conception after consenual sex abortion should be difficult. Every possible means to care for the child should be pursued and if the parents cant it is likely that others can. If no one wants the child that is a sad commentary on the couple who conceived and society in general and in that case it would be better not to be born. In a decent society that would be rare but Im guessing if our society stopped aborting tomorrow our ability to adopt and care for these children would be overwhelmed. Shame on us. Your guess is just that; a guess.
Our society in the past when abortion wasn't legal never adopted all children. Why do you think that society had orphanages?
You think that you are the only one who can decide what the moral action is to take in certain circumstances.
You have NO idea of circumstances that a family can face in any certain pregnancy. Never-the-less, YOU seem to think your stance on morality is the ONLY stance.
YOU seem to think that YOU should make their decisions for them instead of allowing parents to decide for themselves what is best and moral decision for them!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 7, 2016 0:04:43 GMT -5
Right. Taking a life is not a casual undertaking. In fact its generally illegal.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2016 8:51:22 GMT -5
Its wrong to arbitrarily take life. Define life. We live in a world where living and dying is the normal condition. How does this change the morality of the situation? It just puts the courts in the middle. Will having it be difficult, in your mind, make it better? How likely? I wonder if this is the reason that people get abortions. What is the shame?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 7, 2016 10:36:15 GMT -5
I'm guessing that you would like this earth to be paradise. That is not the purpose of this life or earth. That is to come. Would you like a world with no suffering or pain. Robots so to speak devoid of emotions or pain. God did not say there would be no suffering but amidst suffering he is there as a source of emotional comfort. Death is a way out of suffering. Guess God could have made us without any emotions or physical feelings so we would not feel pain or suffering. I'm glad he gave us both. A lot of suffering is man's own doing. Good and evil is God's plan although not ours. If there is suffering in this life then how much more would we like a world were paradise exists. A hope, a purpose. No God means no purpose beyond the suffering of this world. The rain falls on the just and unjust. I already replied to this earlier, but I feel like saying more. So, here goes... Consider the following premises (assuming God exists in the first place): * God is maximally knowledgeable * God is maximally powerful * God is maximally good (moral) * It is bad (immoral) for any moral agent (M1) to allow another moral agent (M2) to suffer when M1 has no adequate justification for not stopping the suffering. * God is a moral agent * Suffering exists I argue that these premises are incompatible with each other. If God knows about suffering, can do something about it, and is morally obligated to do something about it, then suffering should not exist. This seems to indicate that one of the premises is false. I think it's most likely that God isn't good, but I admit that it's possible that God has adequate justification for not stopping the suffering. What might that justification be? It seems unlikely that free will necessitates our ability to harm others, at least to the extent which we can. How can free will justify God's allowance of warfare, genocide, rape, torture, abuse, and a myriad of other things? Similarly, it seems unlikely that the extent of suffering we observe is justified by a need to avoid a robot-like lack of emotions. I'm not convinced that God could not have created a world whose inhabitants could experience a range of emotions without suffering, or at least suffering as much as they do here on Earth. I see no real recourse for the believer but to admit that we simply don't know what reasons God might have for allowing us to suffer. And I see no reason to call God good -- let alone maximally good -- until he can reveal those reasons and demonstrate that he is. About purpose: I believe it's much easier for someone to accept life without a "higher purpose" if they haven't been previously indoctrinated into believing that there is one. Harder to go from theism to atheism than to be raised atheist. But you raise an issue that applies to many believers and non-believers alike, and I've given it some thought. For one thing, it's nice to think that we get to decide what our own purpose is; perhaps the best of our options is to spend our lives improving all aspects of it. Since we are social creatures, this means improving society, improving our environment, and focusing on healthy relationships. Or maybe you have a bucket list to complete. I think it's okay to treat our lives as an experience we'll only have once and try to make the most of it. There's a "reverse" issue of purpose, to consider, also -- if God doesn't exist, how many believers are doing things they might not want to do (or not doing things they might want to do) if they were non-believers? Granted, many believers live a great and fulfilling life regardless of God, but I've also heard many previously believing non-believers express great regret about time and resources they regard as wasted. In the end, though, what we think about our purpose (and what it ought to be) doesn't answer the question of whether God exists or not. I dont think its accurate to say God never did anything to restrain evil. Whether you believe god gave the jews and other nations a code of law to restrain evil or you think government was more of an evolution, surely god endowed us with the wisdom of governance and ability to recognize its ability to be an influence for good and a restraint upon evil. Each of us has such a capacity to be destructive and or healing as we live out our lives weve rightly been called gods. That is the nature of freewill. Most christians believe our experience as human being has been profoundly influenced by an invidual or agency known as Satan. There are defiled minds and there are diabolical minds but the idea our existence is being held hostage by a specific person doesnt work well for my preference for being concrete. If im gonna talk about faith I believe I should talk about things I know about. But I understand the rationale for satan. It explains why things are so bad. Many christians believe suffering is the consequence of the first man and womans disobedience. Im not sure about that idea either. If humankind is emerging by an evolutionary sequence it would be more accurate to say were a work in progress.
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 7, 2016 14:15:45 GMT -5
I already replied to this earlier, but I feel like saying more. So, here goes... Consider the following premises (assuming God exists in the first place): * God is maximally knowledgeable * God is maximally powerful * God is maximally good (moral) * It is bad (immoral) for any moral agent (M1) to allow another moral agent (M2) to suffer when M1 has no adequate justification for not stopping the suffering. * God is a moral agent * Suffering exists I argue that these premises are incompatible with each other. If God knows about suffering, can do something about it, and is morally obligated to do something about it, then suffering should not exist. This seems to indicate that one of the premises is false. I think it's most likely that God isn't good, but I admit that it's possible that God has adequate justification for not stopping the suffering. What might that justification be? It seems unlikely that free will necessitates our ability to harm others, at least to the extent which we can. How can free will justify God's allowance of warfare, genocide, rape, torture, abuse, and a myriad of other things? Similarly, it seems unlikely that the extent of suffering we observe is justified by a need to avoid a robot-like lack of emotions. I'm not convinced that God could not have created a world whose inhabitants could experience a range of emotions without suffering, or at least suffering as much as they do here on Earth. I see no real recourse for the believer but to admit that we simply don't know what reasons God might have for allowing us to suffer. And I see no reason to call God good -- let alone maximally good -- until he can reveal those reasons and demonstrate that he is. About purpose: I believe it's much easier for someone to accept life without a "higher purpose" if they haven't been previously indoctrinated into believing that there is one. Harder to go from theism to atheism than to be raised atheist. But you raise an issue that applies to many believers and non-believers alike, and I've given it some thought. For one thing, it's nice to think that we get to decide what our own purpose is; perhaps the best of our options is to spend our lives improving all aspects of it. Since we are social creatures, this means improving society, improving our environment, and focusing on healthy relationships. Or maybe you have a bucket list to complete. I think it's okay to treat our lives as an experience we'll only have once and try to make the most of it. There's a "reverse" issue of purpose, to consider, also -- if God doesn't exist, how many believers are doing things they might not want to do (or not doing things they might want to do) if they were non-believers? Granted, many believers live a great and fulfilling life regardless of God, but I've also heard many previously believing non-believers express great regret about time and resources they regard as wasted. In the end, though, what we think about our purpose (and what it ought to be) doesn't answer the question of whether God exists or not. I dont think its accurate to say God never did anything to restrain evil. Whether you believe god gave the jews and other nations a code of law to restrain evil or you think government was more of an evolution, surely god endowed us with the wisdom of governance and ability to recognize its ability to be an influence for good and a restraint upon evil. Each of us has such a capacity to be destructive and or healing as we live out our lives weve rightly been called gods. That is the nature of freewill. Most christians believe our experience as human being has been profoundly influenced by an invidual or agency known as Satan. There are defiled minds and there are diabolical minds but the idea our existence is being held hostage by a specific person doesnt work well for my preference for being concrete. If im gonna talk about faith I believe I should talk about things I know about. But I understand the rationale for satan. It explains why things are so bad. Many christians believe suffering is the consequence of the first man and womans disobedience. Im not sure about that idea either. If humankind is emerging by an evolutionary sequence it would be more accurate to say were a work in progress. I don't think I ever claimed that God never did anything to restrain evil; if I did, I retract it. The problem is that there is evil which God does not restrain. What is it about making the choice to serve God that demands being able to harm other people? Even if free will and suffering are necessary, it doesn't follow that we must be allowed to distribute suffering where we see fit -- in a more just world, God (who is supposed to have perfect judgment) might simply distribute suffering where suffering is due. If Satan is causing suffering, God is still allowing it; I don't think it explains why things are so bad. I have never understood how people rationalize the idea that someone is guilty of something their ancestors did.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 7, 2016 15:30:43 GMT -5
How does a choice to serve god require one to harm people? Do you mean in the sense of consenting with an action or inaction of God that seems evil? Yeah Idk. I wont fault god though. Id sooner believe I knew nothing about the true nature of the world. We are all dying that is for sure. I do long for heaven.
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 7, 2016 18:28:14 GMT -5
How does a choice to serve god require one to harm people? Do you mean in the sense of consenting with an action or inaction of God that seems evil? Yeah Idk. I wont fault god though. Id sooner believe I knew nothing about the true nature of the world. We are all dying that is for sure. I do long for heaven. You seem pretty convinced that God is innocent. How did you determine that?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 8, 2016 0:21:26 GMT -5
How does a choice to serve god require one to harm people? Do you mean in the sense of consenting with an action or inaction of God that seems evil? Yeah Idk. I wont fault god though. Id sooner believe I knew nothing about the true nature of the world. We are all dying that is for sure. I do long for heaven. You seem pretty convinced that God is innocent. How did you determine that? The willing suspension of disbelief on a cosmic level?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 8, 2016 2:31:51 GMT -5
How does a choice to serve god require one to harm people? Do you mean in the sense of consenting with an action or inaction of God that seems evil? Yeah Idk. I wont fault god though. Id sooner believe I knew nothing about the true nature of the world. We are all dying that is for sure. I do long for heaven. You seem pretty convinced that God is innocent. How did you determine that? I wouldnt say hes innocent exactly. He knew very well some would choose evil over good. In granting us freewill he gave us rope. So I would distinguish between committing a specific act of evil like humans do and creating the whole shooting match we call life. I do think hes good each day I wake up. I can be happy with or without things and I can emphathize with other peoples tragedies without despairing myself. We imitate our environment. We tend to become dark hearted if we believe everything is futile and all is unjustice or injurious. One this isnt true and two we deny our own contribution to the environment. I thought the following link was a good rational arguement for the goodness of God. theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/how-do-we-know-god-is-good/
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 8, 2016 19:41:25 GMT -5
You seem pretty convinced that God is innocent. How did you determine that? I wouldnt say hes innocent exactly. He knew very well some would choose evil over good. In granting us freewill he gave us rope. So I would distinguish between committing a specific act of evil like humans do and creating the whole shooting match we call life. I do think hes good each day I wake up. I can be happy with or without things and I can emphathize with other peoples tragedies without despairing myself. We imitate our environment. We tend to become dark hearted if we believe everything is futile and all is unjustice or injurious. One this isnt true and two we deny our own contribution to the environment. I thought the following link was a good rational arguement for the goodness of God. theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/how-do-we-know-god-is-good/If, by granting us free will, God caused suffering, and if his hand wasn't forced, then God can't be called maximally good, right? And the seeming needless evils that he allows to happen daily make me conclude that he should be called nothing less than a monster until it's demonstrated otherwise. I don't see how free will gets him off the hook for most suffering. I don't believe everything is futile and unjust, and I think there is lots of happiness in the world, but there's a lot of room for improvement. You doubtless know the tale of the good Samaritan; why doesn't God practice what he (or his son) preaches? Regardless of who or what is responsible for directly causing the suffering, what excuse does God have for watching it unfold while he could easily be stopping it? There's a slight possibility that a good excuse exists, but if there is one then I don't think we have any idea what it could be. 1. God is the greatest. 2. God couldn't be the greatest if he wasn't also the best. 3. Therefore, God is the best. For this to hold up, it must be established that God is maximally great. For that, they appeal to the ontological argument. But I find the ontological argument unconvincing [Link 1, Link 2].
The blog post you linked to includes a second argument, which I also find unconvincing. But I need to get started on my calculus, so for now I'll refer you to this Wikipedia page -- see "argument from objective moral truths."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 19:47:06 GMT -5
I wouldnt say hes innocent exactly. He knew very well some would choose evil over good. In granting us freewill he gave us rope. So I would distinguish between committing a specific act of evil like humans do and creating the whole shooting match we call life. I do think hes good each day I wake up. I can be happy with or without things and I can emphathize with other peoples tragedies without despairing myself. We imitate our environment. We tend to become dark hearted if we believe everything is futile and all is unjustice or injurious. One this isnt true and two we deny our own contribution to the environment. I thought the following link was a good rational arguement for the goodness of God. theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/how-do-we-know-god-is-good/If, by granting us free will, God caused suffering, and if his hand wasn't forced, then God can't be called maximally good, right? And the seeming needless evils that he allows to happen daily make me conclude that he should be called nothing less than a monster until it's demonstrated otherwise. I don't see how free will gets him off the hook for most suffering. I don't believe everything is futile and unjust, and I think there is lots of happiness in the world, but there's a lot of room for improvement. You doubtless know the tale of the good Samaritan; why doesn't God practice what he (or his son) preaches? Regardless of who or what is responsible for directly causing the suffering, what excuse does God have for watching it unfold while he could easily be stopping it? There's a slight possibility that a good excuse exists, but if there is one then I don't think we have any idea what it could be. 1. God is the greatest. 2. God couldn't be the greatest if he wasn't also the best. 3. Therefore, God is the best. For this to hold up, it must be established that God is maximally great. For that, they appeal to the ontological argument. But I find the ontological argument unconvincing [Link 1, Link 2].
The blog post you linked to includes a second argument, which I also find unconvincing. But I need to get started on my calculus, so for now I'll refer you to this Wikipedia page -- see "argument from objective moral truths." if someone gave you 1,000,000 dollars and you blew it all on candy who's fault is it? yours or the person who gave you the 1,000,000 dollars? same goes with free will you can either do good with it or evil the choice is yours...
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 8, 2016 22:01:03 GMT -5
if someone gave you 1,000,000 dollars and you blew it all on candy who's fault is it? yours or the person who gave you the 1,000,000 dollars? same goes with free will you can either do good with it or evil the choice is yours... It'd be my fault. Yes, if we use our free will to hurt ourselves or to hurt others, that's our fault. But that's not the point. The point is that God could stop us from doing so at any point and he doesn't. And that's not to mention natural disasters, disease, and other things that aren't caused by humans. Imagine that a mass shooting situation is starting to unfold in front of you. A man with an Uzi stands in the middle of the crowd, ready to pull the trigger. But your finger is hovering above the magic button that will jam his Uzi and foil his evil plan! Do you press the button? Seems like a no-brainer. Of course you press the button. If you just let the man start pouring bullets into the crowd, what would you be, some kind of monster? What excuse would you have -- "it's not my fault, it's the shooter's?" God has far more power than a magic button, but he lets all sorts of horrific things happen. If he has a good reason for that I have no idea what it could possibly be.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 8, 2016 22:56:07 GMT -5
If, by granting us free will, God caused suffering, and if his hand wasn't forced, then God can't be called maximally good, right? And the seeming needless evils that he allows to happen daily make me conclude that he should be called nothing less than a monster until it's demonstrated otherwise. I don't see how free will gets him off the hook for most suffering. I don't believe everything is futile and unjust, and I think there is lots of happiness in the world, but there's a lot of room for improvement. You doubtless know the tale of the good Samaritan; why doesn't God practice what he (or his son) preaches? Regardless of who or what is responsible for directly causing the suffering, what excuse does God have for watching it unfold while he could easily be stopping it? There's a slight possibility that a good excuse exists, but if there is one then I don't think we have any idea what it could be. 1. God is the greatest. 2. God couldn't be the greatest if he wasn't also the best. 3. Therefore, God is the best. For this to hold up, it must be established that God is maximally great. For that, they appeal to the ontological argument. But I find the ontological argument unconvincing [Link 1, Link 2].
The blog post you linked to includes a second argument, which I also find unconvincing. But I need to get started on my calculus, so for now I'll refer you to this Wikipedia page -- see "argument from objective moral truths." if someone gave you 1,000,000 dollars and you blew it all on candy who's fault is it? yours or the person who gave you the 1,000,000 dollars? same goes with free will you can either do good with it or evil the choice is yours... Wally, this whole idea of god supposedly "man having free will, so that it isn't god's fault when mankind make errors," is simple a rationalization that Christians use to give god an excuse when something goes wrong.
They claim that their GOD is an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, entity. An all powerful, especially and ALL LOVING god would not subject his "supposed" "CREATION" to all those ills, errors, earth upheavals, climate problems etc. that happens to this world!
They have to admit that we OURSELVES do make mistakes and our world is often violent. That being true, -religious people, especially Christians, must come for some kind of an excuse for their GOD!
They have to come up with something in order to exonerate their perfect GOD from doing anything wrong.
So they claim it isn't HIS fault; -HE gave us "free will" and it is we who are to blame!** and of course it is even harder for them to admit there really isn't any supernatural being looking out for them to start with**
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 8, 2016 23:19:46 GMT -5
If you took away freewill life would be deconstructed as we know it. We would cease to be moral beings because we'd never have an opportunity to exercise it. But since we can grasp the concept of maximal goodness we should do our best to remind ourselves of who god really is. But then why did the imposter create us? Did he sin against his own badness?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 9, 2016 0:58:36 GMT -5
If you took away freewill life would be deconstructed as we know it. We would cease to be moral beings because we'd never have an opportunity to exercise it. But since we can grasp the concept of maximal goodness we should do our best to remind ourselves of who god really is. But then why did the imposter create us? Did he sin against his own badness? But you and other Christians claim that have already have "free-will!"
They claim it was "given" to us by your "god!"
We are already beings who can act in a morally responsible way towards others or some who don't always act in a morally responsible way!
We don't really need any god to tell us the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 0:59:50 GMT -5
if someone gave you 1,000,000 dollars and you blew it all on candy who's fault is it? yours or the person who gave you the 1,000,000 dollars? same goes with free will you can either do good with it or evil the choice is yours... It'd be my fault. Yes, if we use our free will to hurt ourselves or to hurt others, that's our fault. But that's not the point. The point is that God could stop us from doing so at any point and he doesn't. And that's not to mention natural disasters, disease, and other things that aren't caused by humans. Imagine that a mass shooting situation is starting to unfold in front of you. A man with an Uzi stands in the middle of the crowd, ready to pull the trigger. But your finger is hovering above the magic button that will jam his Uzi and foil his evil plan! Do you press the button? Seems like a no-brainer. Of course you press the button. If you just let the man start pouring bullets into the crowd, what would you be, some kind of monster? What excuse would you have -- "it's not my fault, it's the shooter's?" God has far more power than a magic button, but he lets all sorts of horrific things happen. If he has a good reason for that I have no idea what it could possibly be. but it wouldn't be free will if he kept interfering 100% in what we do...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 9, 2016 1:27:44 GMT -5
It'd be my fault. Yes, if we use our free will to hurt ourselves or to hurt others, that's our fault. But that's not the point. The point is that God could stop us from doing so at any point and he doesn't. And that's not to mention natural disasters, disease, and other things that aren't caused by humans. Imagine that a mass shooting situation is starting to unfold in front of you. A man with an Uzi stands in the middle of the crowd, ready to pull the trigger. But your finger is hovering above the magic button that will jam his Uzi and foil his evil plan ! Do you press the button? Seems like a no-brainer. Of course you press the button. If you just let the man start pouring bullets into the crowd, what would you be, some kind of monster? What excuse would you have -- "it's not my fault, it's the shooter's?" God has far more power than a magic button, but he lets all sorts of horrific things happen . If he has a good reason for that I have no idea what it could possibly be. but it wouldn't be free will if he kept interfering 100% in what we do... God IS suppose to have power, yet the fact that HE lets all sorts of horrific things happen is for me the clincher that GOD doesn't even exist!
We are on our own and that is what scares people to the point that they want a GOD to take care of problems of such evil.
Of course he doesn't.
Since there is no GOD Christians have to have a reason that he doesn't do anything! So they have invented the idea that HE gave us "free- will!"
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 9, 2016 4:00:03 GMT -5
If you took away freewill life would be deconstructed as we know it. We would cease to be moral beings because we'd never have an opportunity to exercise it. But since we can grasp the concept of maximal goodness we should do our best to remind ourselves of who god really is. But then why did the imposter create us? Did he sin against his own badness? But you and other Christians claim that have already have "free-will!"
They claim it was "given" to us by your "god!"
We are already beings who can act in a morally responsible way towards others or some who don't always act in a morally responsible way!
We don't really need any god to tell us the difference.I think you missed my logic. The idea were discussing is that one, god must not be maximally good or two, he must not exist at all because evil exists. What Im saying is that if god were truly bad he wouldnt have given us the ability to conceive something like maximal goodness. That way we could be bad and not wink or flinch or feel regret. We could just sin shamelessly. But we dont. So my question is did god forget to be bad when he created us when he gave us a conscience? And wouldnt that make us God in a sense and our creator something less than god since after all we perceive maximal goodness and pursue it? Sure I know not everybody but some people take being good seriously. And most people take it at least somewhat seriously. The premise of maximal goodness is an admission of God.
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 9, 2016 14:23:51 GMT -5
It'd be my fault. Yes, if we use our free will to hurt ourselves or to hurt others, that's our fault. But that's not the point. The point is that God could stop us from doing so at any point and he doesn't. And that's not to mention natural disasters, disease, and other things that aren't caused by humans. Imagine that a mass shooting situation is starting to unfold in front of you. A man with an Uzi stands in the middle of the crowd, ready to pull the trigger. But your finger is hovering above the magic button that will jam his Uzi and foil his evil plan! Do you press the button? Seems like a no-brainer. Of course you press the button. If you just let the man start pouring bullets into the crowd, what would you be, some kind of monster? What excuse would you have -- "it's not my fault, it's the shooter's?" God has far more power than a magic button, but he lets all sorts of horrific things happen. If he has a good reason for that I have no idea what it could possibly be. but it wouldn't be free will if he kept interfering 100% in what we do... We'd still be able to exercise our free will in doing good. But why is free will required in the first place?
|
|
jigpeter
Junior Member
Hinga dinga durgan
Posts: 188
|
Post by jigpeter on Nov 9, 2016 14:28:32 GMT -5
What Im saying is that if god were truly bad he wouldnt have given us the ability to conceive something like maximal goodness. That way we could be bad and not wink or flinch or feel regret. We could just sin shamelessly. What makes you think this? Also, isn't there a lot of disagreement on what constitutes "good?"
|
|