The insecure mods and thought police have finally lifted my ban.
Any questions?
Regards
DL
1 Like
The Bible never says Godās love is unconditional.
Love hates whatever devalues the objects of that love.Love patiently corrects the devaluer. Love after being patient punishes the devaluer who refuses to be corrected.
Is there anything you find objectionable in that kind of love?
Iām not agnostic because I want chaos and anarchy, Iām agnostic because I donāt particularly believe in any of the stories. Half the commandments are about worshipping god. Iām more than happy to (by happenstance) follow the other ones. I love my parents, Iām loyal to my wife, I donāt want to kill anybody, and I donāt want to steal my neighborās ā ā ā ā ā I assume if thereās a god he gave me this brain and gets where Iām coming from.
If he turns out to be the self contradicting spiteful narcissist in the Bible Iāll be a little disappointed.
2 Likes
That is way too generic. In a context, what kind of punishment is justified, what degree of hate is justified, and per the claims of God, written in the Bible, how do his actions answer these questions in such a context. Moral platitudes are valueless without concrete actions to juxtapose
1 Like
We die from the perspective as a human, but we donāt know if weāre still being born when that happens.
I have said, āYou are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you,
but you all shall die like men,
and fall like a man, O princes.ā
Psalm 82
I would like to have an intelligent and measured discussion about your objections to Christians taking the Bible seriously. That is made more difficult, if we refuse to acknowledge aspects of one anothersā positions that are reasonable. I am not sure whether you have an objection to the kind of love I describedā¦ Should love hate what devalues its beloved. Should love attempt to correct the devaluer? Should love punish the devaluer who refuses to stop devaluing the beloved?
I have an objection over the broadness of the abstraction. Ethics usually arent reducible to vague platitudes, but rather, such platitudes usually require refinement when placed in a real life context. The answer to all of your questions about āloveā is āit dependsā.
2 Likes
I wrote -
[quote=āPaul_Thomson, post:187, -topic:129116ā]
Should love hate what devalues its beloved. Should love attempt to correct the devaluer? Should love punish the devaluer who refuses to stop devaluing the beloved? [/quote]
You seem to be saying there are some situations in which love should not hate what devalues its beloved; there are some situations in which love should not attempt to correct the devaluer; there are some situations in which love should not punish the devaluer who refuses to stop devaluing the beloved?
Correct. Depends on what you mean by ādevalueā, in what context an individual is being devalued, and the nature of punishment given
By devalue I mean either not to acknowledge the intrinsic value of someone or something; or to corrupt someone or something that has intrinsic value
āAgapeā Is a classical Greek word for an affection for someone or something because one recognises it as having intrinsic value. It is the Greek word the New Testament uses mostly for Godās love.
Can you give an example where love should not meet the criteria mentioned.?
Again, your criteria is way too broad and generalized to give an answer.
1 Like
The broadness of the general description given should make it easier to find a counter-example. The fact seems to be that you canāt think of even one. And you donāt want frankly to admit the validity of my premises, because you donāt like where admitting that might lead.
Weāve been bringing up countless examples in this thread. For example, Noah and the Flood. Youāre classifications though are so abstract they are almost meaningless. Might as well roll with āstuff and thingsā
Theres nothing to counter because there are no concrete types attached to your premise. Itās an abstraction. You have yet to actually apply the abstraction in any real concrete context
Posters here by and large have no interest in exploring reality and finding truths. They mostly want simply to nay-say the posts of others who have reached different conclusions. And they are by and large careless about critiquing their own rationales for their own assertions to assess whether they make logical sense rather than simply being emotionally driven reactions to ideas that jar with poorly founded prejudices.
Someone argued that the biblical account of God inundating the world must be rarionalised away because it makes the Bible look bad. There has been no logically sound or valid eexplanation as to why that claim is true. I am trying to lay out a logical explanation as to why that was merely an emotionally driven reaction to an idea tha jars with poorly founded prejudices. But there is away to logically assess the claims by which the Bible does not look bad for including this narrative.
We should agree that it is possible, albeit unproven, that the universeās creator exists and is able to do whatever He/it wants to do. It is therefore possibly true that this Creator can remove souls/personalities from bodies, if he wants,; return them to the same bodies, if he wants,; and return them to nrwly created bodies, if He wants.
Would it be evil for such a God to remove from their physical bodies all the souls of all the worldās population, bar eight, during a forty days period, and to hold them outside their physical bodies until He is ready to return them to physical bodies? In fact, He **could"" remove the souls at any number of these so that they did not even experience drowning if He wanted.
Why would this in any way impugn God 's character or the Bible.
I think itās been made pretty clear. God exterminating the planet (which includes babies and children). God playing games with Abraham making him think he should kill his son.
Yea, Iām sure there are 100 ways to rationalize it away. For example:
A giant rationalization. If hes removing souls just to put them back into bodies, what was the point of the whole extravaganza?
Genesis 6:7
The LORD said, āI will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.ā
Where do you get āGod just removed the souls temporarily and put them back into bodiesā? Why make things up?
Labelling a valid logical argument as a rationalization just because it results in a conclusion that jars against your unreasoned prejudice, is called ā poisoning the wellā and is a logical fallacy.
The Bible says that Jesus was raised from death by the Spirit **in which he went and preached to the souls in prison, who refused to listen to Noahās preaching, so that though they died in the flesh they might live in the Spirit. ** So, Iām not just making that up. Itās a logically valid point of view which comprehends the flood narrative in a good light. The perspective jars against your prejudices, but youācannot prove it is an irrational view to hold - which also jars against your prejudices.
Itās not a logical argument. Its straight up rationalization, insertion of ideas into a story to make it sound less immoral. I can also make anything up and insert it into a story. Just because I made something up and its ālogicalā doesnt mean it isnt a rationalization. Iām not sure you quite understand what logic actually is and how logic ties into epistemology.
Yes. People cherry pick portions of the Bible all the time to rationalize the old Testament.
1 Like
[quote=āImRightYoureWrong, post:199, topic:129116ā]tās not a logical argument. Its straight up rationalization, insertion of ideas into a story to make it sound less immoral
[/quote]
rationalization
/raŹ(É)n(É)lŹÉŖĖzeÉŖŹ(É)n/
noun
noun: rationalisation
the action of attempting to explain or justify behaviour or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
āmost people are prone to self-deceptive rationalizationā
You are begging the questionā¦ Another logical fallacyā¦ Assuming that explaining scripture is not appropriate.
