|
Did God invent the personal computer?
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
If God really wanted to test his subjects on the strength of their morality, why would he ever reveal himself at all? By releasing the Bible, he lets the cat out of the bag. By revealing himself and declaring a set of holy laws, he interferes with the free will of his subjects. In fact, if there is objective good, there should be no need to reveal it to righteous men. If you argue that there are no righteous men and that they must be guided, then you argue that their free will is worthless, which begs the question as to why God would test them in the first place? E: Hope this isn't a repeat. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Life has no inherent meaning and when you're dead, you're gone. So have fun and help make the world a better place, even if for no other reason than because that makes the world a better place for you, too. Or you could spend your time wringing your hands about an argument held in a dead language by two guys born 1700 years ago over exactly how and why you'll be tormented forever if that floats your boat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
But it's not explicitly a 'modern secular' view though. Like, you seem to believe that the is-ought is simply a kind of rule of debate, which we stick to out of courtesy or whatever, or because you believe in a certain viewpoint. It's not, it's more profound than that, it's a truth about the world outside your own head. Just as 'it is cloudy before it rains, it rained -> it was cloudy' must be true if its assumptions are true, you cannot simply escape hume's law by assuming it's just about debate. It's result is saying that a prescription cannot be true without assuming another prescription is true. There is no final truth, or 'essence' of morality, which you can start from. You're only going to end up with an endless chain of prescriptions. "Why should I follow god's law" "Because it is the ultimate morality" "why is it ultimate morality" "Because he created anything" "Why should being a creator matter" etc, etc. You can't end that chain, there is no logical way to prove that you must do something - there is no objective morality. The instance you accept a prescription as a 'valid starting point' of the logical chain, is the instance you assume a subjectivity. That you, personally, think that the created must obey its creator (if the creator is all-powerful) is your starting point, of your subjectivity. When people debate about morality, it's always assuming a common understanding, a common set of standards, which you can refer to. But there is nothing mythical about those standards, nor about that commonality, all it means is that a debate can take place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This really is the essence of the objection. I think people care about this more than any "lack of proof" issue with God. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Well, literal pitchforks was not what I was implying, either. I think the general idea is that Hell is unimaginably unpleasant, regardless of the specifics. If you want to argue that Hell can actually be a great place if you're not into that God stuff, well, okay, I guess. It's a completely different premise, but none of it's real anyway so knock yourself out. It is unimaginably unpleasant because the lack of God is unimaginably unpleasant. Like when Socrates speaks about how his love of philosophy comes from the desire that his soul should discover the metaphysical laws of the universe and through that gain life eternal instead of wandering the world tied to its material past. Similarly, imagine that there is a metaphysical moral system, the knowledge of which distinguishes man from animal. I.e. the man, through his reason, has the potentiality to know this moral system, that is God, and initiate a reciprocal exchange which leads to actualization of his potentiality, i.e. ascendance away from the temporal phenomena towards life in harmony with eternal principles as part of the true Church. Failure to realize this potentiality means the man fails to fulfill the nature of his substance, and is therefore closer to animals and things which do not have reason or spirit, than to spiritual beings. One step further - man now doesn't possess the unique essential quality that enables his betterment, and is doomed to have is soul dwell among the soul of rocks, animals, plants etc., to spend eternity on the level of simple beings without "heart". Such a prospect must be most anguishing to anybody who is given to philosophy and to search for meaning, but is it unjust? Consider - is it unjust if an animal, who isn't meant to be part of the Church, to be denied partaking in it? Is then a man whose soul took the path of an animal unjustly relegated to the afterlife of an animal in the sense that the entelechy of his material body, not of his spirit becomes his eternal principle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The thread went to 'god is immoral' because you didn't care about proof of existence: you explicitly rejected comparisons to the Spaghetti Monster because 'more people believed in god'. How could anyone have a serious debate on existence if that is what you think, that existence is based on popular opinion? How could informed debate occur if you thought that non-sequitur was in any way valid? The very basic proofs of God argue, using very simple logic, that: 1) God's existence is his essence, and that therefore he has no genus, and no body, and that he is not in space as a living body 2) We do not know anything specific about the essence of God (besides what is alluded to in the Scripture) except that it exists. Spaghetti monster isn't convincing because it is - contrary to what its creator believe - inconsistent with some very basic Christian teachings. Such conclusions don't really need to be argued because they have been available for hundreds of years to anybody with even an elemental interest in the topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It is unimaginably unpleasant because the lack of God is unimaginably unpleasant. Nah, it's not. A ton of people don't have God in their life and they get along fine. So do some people that do have God in their life, while some people are miserable shits with or without God. steinrokkan posted:The very basic proofs of Spaghetti Monster argue, using very simple logic, that: "Turn the other cheek unless I tell you to exterminate that tribe over there." Sharkie fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
I don't think you actually understand what point the FSM is trying to show: it's not about irrelevant particularities, it's about justified belief & truth. Arguments for god have been attempted on these grounds - all have failed.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The very basic proofs of God argue, using very simple logic, that: I ran into this a lot when I took a Catholic theology course. I'd be with them four steps out of six, and I'd allow the fifth as a possibility; the sixth step, of course, was "therefore, the Catholic theology" and it was like, No, this is not convincingly proven. The purpose of the spaghetti monster concept is to mock the American fundamentalist Protestant Evangelical sects which have disproportionate influence in modern American politics, mixed in with other things of course. It is quite possible that it goes against key theological precepts, but these are not precepts in the general marketplace of ideas; in the current American marketplace of ideas, if you say "Christian" you probably mean something Billy Graham would find acceptable, POSSIBLY with some recognition that the Catholics while broadly agreeing are their own thing with slightly different regulations (and pedophilia scandals).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:"Turn the other cheek unless I tell you to exterminate that tribe over there." In that case you should be quite happy with the deal that Christianity offers you.จจ quote:"Turn the other cheek unless I tell you to exterminate that tribe over there." rudatron posted:I don't think you actually understand what point the FSM is trying to show: it's not about irrelevant particularities, it's about justified belief & truth. Arguments for god have been attempted on these grounds - all have failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And I don't think you understand the significance of the proof of God - it's not a particularity, it's the fundamental through which religion must be understood. Without it people have the perverse image of God as a man on a cloud who is the same as them and acts with the same human folly as them, and of Hell as something relatable to the body rather than soul. Or is this one of those things that's only valid when it scores a point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What relevance does it have to anything. The point is that the Bible is steinrokkan posted:inconsistent with some very basic Christian teachings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Explain how any of this is relevant to the question of existence.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
relevant to the "god is autistic" discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVSQ25Q4Uw4
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Jesus was a thug traveling with a gang who made their own thug culture. People want to glorify his death but he was no angel. Look at his rap sheet, it's filled with uppity defiance of the authorities and vandalism/blatant disregard for property rights. This is a perfect post. Also there is no god, hence rampant abuse of power in institutions closest to god. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Did God invent the personal computer? pictured god and his invention: evil
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Look at this moral judgment of God... Not judging God though, He didn't appear wreathed in fire to tell me this story. I'm judging the word of some ordinary dude who wants me to believe cursing random living things out of petulant anger is something an all-wise, all-loving God would do. Answer: nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And I don't think you understand the significance of the proof of God - it's not a particularity, it's the fundamental through which religion must be understood. Without it people have the perverse image of God as a man on a cloud who is the same as them and acts with the same human folly as them, and of Hell as something relatable to the body rather than soul. Nothing you've said actually challenges the basic point that was made. The fact that your concept of God is a little more "sophisticated" than the ignorant layman's isn't an automatic proof of God's existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:1) God's existence is his essence, and that therefore he has no genus, and no body, and that he is not in space as a living body So then how are we to interpret verses in the OT, especially the story of Moses where he asked to see God's face, and God responded that no one could see his face and live. However, he would put his hand over Moses and pass by, and then Moses could look at his back. This would seem to imply God does have a body of some sort, in addition to the fact that we are said to be made in God's image and according to his likeness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The very basic proofs of God argue, using very simple logic, that: Hold on, how is any of this logical? How did you determine these to be true? What evidence do you have to back these assertions up? quote:Such conclusions don't really need to be argued because they have been available for hundreds of years to anybody with even an elemental interest in the topic. No, no, you don't just get to make assertions and then declare them to be forgone conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Like, have you considered reading anything about theology, like anything at all? How would you feel if, said, somebody came to the Marxist thread and started asking what "capital" is and why Communists hate America? It's just tiresome to answer questions that are answered in the first chapter of Summa, including answers to the rebuttal of these questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Like, have you considered reading anything about theology, like anything at all? How would you feel if, said, somebody came to the Marxist thread and started asking what "capital" is and why Communists hate America? It's just tiresome to answer questions that are answered in the first chapter of Summa, including answers to the rebuttal of these questions. I have read quite a lot about theology, which is why I know that you can't just assert these things. This isn't like asking what capital is or why communists hate America, because both of those things have generally agreed upon definitions that don't vary much if any at all between experts. But this isn't so with God. There are as many definitions as there are people on this earth and many of them aren't similar in the least and many more are mutually exclusive to one another. Your definitions would not be accepted by many different religions, including many denominations of Christianity. This is more akin to you coming in and saying "The Invisible Hand of the Free Market always produces results that eliminate poverty. It's simply not up for contention!" and when someone rightfully points out that, no, your assertion isn't a given you reply, "Have you taken a single economics class? Or read a mises.org article? Even just one?" Sorry, buddy, but this is a subject that has been debated for a long, long time and you haven't found the one position that is magically beyond reproach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:12
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have read quite a lot about theology Doesn't sound like it
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Doesn't sound like it I never said that I agreed with any of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Nothing you have said has been a substantive response to the questions you have been asked, nor relevant to that original quote you have of me. I do not believe you have understood my or other parties' replies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The very basic proofs of God argue, using very simple logic, that: Okay okay, so I get (1) above wherein you define God in the vaguest, most general way as basically the Cosmos, or Existence or Consciousness or some prime urge or whatever that's pretty much impossible to deny in its uninteresting triviality. But how do you get to something interesting like (2), you know the part where God the General Cosmos writes a book filled with talking animals and stage magic, is totes cool with incest, but oh-so-obviously gets furious if I jack it and shoot on the ground?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:spoiler alert Yes, because Adam and Eve did not literally exist. It is a creation myth trying to explain the fallibility of humans and the existence of evil in the world. CommieGIR posted:So, we're already in hell. The Catholic response would be that God is immanent in all of Creation. Sharkie posted:The point is that the Bible is This inconsistency is an issue in some fundamentalist Protestant denominations, but not all Christian denominations believe that the Bible should be the sole source of knowledge or that it is literally true. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Lutherans view the Bible as a tool to help understand the divine. Ultimately, scripture was written by men trying to make sense of the revelations of a transcendent and incomprehensible being. Within these Christian traditions, the Bible should be interpreted with caution. It is divinely inspired but still tempered by the prejudices and desires of the men who wrote it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
For real though is the Jewish/christian god gay? At least the god I worship (Zeus) got some on the side with some human chicks & the Mormon god knocked up Mary. The normal old Christian god & Jesus seem to be huge closet cases in comparison. Did god break off jesus in some hermaphrodite-like ceremony?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
How do we know the Koran isn't divinely inspired. Special revelation by definition is necessary to tell us things about the Divine that human reason is incapable of determining, so it would seem that we have no reliable way to tell true revelation from false? And why would an all-powerful being choose such an unclear, distortion prone method of communicating these crucial truths to us? He couldn't even succeed in unambiguously condemning slavery of all things (no problem getting 99% of christians to oppress gays and abandon polygamy though!), which is pretty hosed up. He could easily appear to everyone on our 16th birthday and go "Hey, I'm real, this Church has the true theology, and oh hey here's a book written just for you in clear, unambiguous wording in your vernacular language, do what it says, peace." But you want me to believe instead He preferred to appear to dehydrated bronze age desert nomads to give them fashion advice and just hope no one kills each other over it later?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do we know the Koran isn't divinely inspired. Special revelation by definition is necessary to tell us things about the Divine that human reason is incapable of determining, so it would seem that we have no reliable way to tell true revelation from false? I forget who said it, but someone once said "If God really wrote or divinely inspired a book, it wouldn't be in a language that would die off. It would be the language of mankind because it's divinity would be so obvious as to be undeniable and its meaning undebatable. There could be no reinterpretations or rivals to it's claim." In short their own mundanity is a point against the claim that of any holy text being divinely inspired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:47
|
|
Sancho posted:For real though is the Jewish/christian god gay? At least the god I worship (Zeus) got some on the side with some human chicks & the Mormon god knocked up Mary. The normal old Christian god & Jesus seem to be huge closet cases in comparison. Did god break off jesus in some hermaphrodite-like ceremony? If we accept that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John, son of Zebedee and not Mary Magdalene or Lazarus...
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do we know the Koran isn't divinely inspired. Special revelation by definition is necessary to tell us things about the Divine that human reason is incapable of determining, so it would seem that we have no reliable way to tell true revelation from false? Simplest answer is that since it and the Bible are mutually exclusive (since the entire point of the Bible is "Jesus is the son of God" and the Koran starts with "God has no sons"), you just go off of which one you feel has more truth to it. Of course there's no way for us in 2014 to validate if Jesus was the son of God or not so you more or less go off reading both and just saying "yeah I think this book makes more sense". Although then you can ask "How do we know the Koans aren't divinely inspired?" and since they're not really mutually exclusive with the Bible (or Koran as far as I know) you can't really argue much beyond "this does(n't) feel divine to me" and before you know it we're arguing if there's any divine inspiration behind Batman: Assault on Arkham.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If we accept that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John, son of Zebedee and not Mary Magdalene or Lazarus... Not that I care it just makes way more sense that the Jewish/christian god is closet gay and anti-gay at the same time just like people IRL. That or their god is a self-hating woman can't decide yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Brandor do you believe that there is One True God whose laws you must follow (or whose Son you have to say is super great I guess) to get into Heaven, or not? Do you believe that the Bible is written to help guide people to that salvation? Have you ever read the New Testament? I like the take on it in Romans. (KJV is terrible, but I am attached to it's flow here, having memorized the whole Romans 8 as a child) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For what the law could not do, God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh. And for sin condemned sin that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." So to answer your question specifically: I am free from the law of sin and death. Grace, not the following some abstract rules written by the deuteronomist (or rules written by any one else for that matter or of the community I am part of)! God sending his own Son, that is the revelation. The bible is a source, record of the encounters of individuals and entire communities with Jesus and the repercussions of the life of Jesus. paragon1 posted:If so, then why, as you claim, does the Bible have accounts of four different divine entities in the OT alone? Is the convert just supposed to guess which one is right? Are none of them real? My God it's almost like different individuals in different situations with radically different life experiences have different thoughts and opinions! paragon1 posted:Either you're full of poo poo or you're saying The Bible is full of poo poo. One makes you a liar, the other makes you a heathen (by pretty much all definitions execpt your own which no one besides you cares about). Or, maybe just maybe, the bible was written by people and that's not a big deal. That might be the reasonable conclusion. And generally speaking someone who professes an ultimate concern for Jesus as the Christ, believes in the Trinity, and affirms Jesus as the Logos, is very hard to characterize as a heathen. I might occasionally be a heretic, but it's actually shocking how in line I am with orthodoxy most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Sancho posted:For real though is the Jewish/christian god gay? At least the god I worship (Zeus) got some on the side with some human chicks & the Mormon god knocked up Mary. The normal old Christian god & Jesus seem to be huge closet cases in comparison. Did god break off jesus in some hermaphrodite-like ceremony? Gender, being a human thing, is not something that God possesses according to most Christian denominations. VitalSigns posted:How do we know the Koran isn't divinely inspired. Special revelation by definition is necessary to tell us things about the Divine that human reason is incapable of determining, so it would seem that we have no reliable way to tell true revelation from false? Catholicism accepts the Bible as inspired and the Qu'ran as not because that is what the Church teaches. The Bible did not come as a pre-packaged list of texts but was compiled over centuries by early Christian leaders as those sources which best make sense of revelation. The Church itself got this authority to discern between texts through its apostolic tradition. It is not a complete account, but it is the best that we can aspire toward. EDIT: I will add that ecumenicalism is a really big thing for a lot of Christian Churches. To use your example, Catholicism would view the message of the Qu'ran not so much as wrong, but flawed and incomplete. I'll quote the Catechisms of the Catholic Church: quote:839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways." The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",[328] "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." VitalSigns posted:And why would an all-powerful being choose such an unclear, distortion prone method of communicating these crucial truths to us? He couldn't even succeed in unambiguously condemning slavery of all things (no problem getting 99% of christians to oppress gays and abandon polygamy though!), which is pretty hosed up. He could easily appear to everyone on our 16th birthday and go "Hey, I'm real, this Church has the true theology, and oh hey here's a book written just for you in clear, unambiguous wording in your vernacular language, do what it says, peace." But you want me to believe instead He preferred to appear to dehydrated bronze age desert nomads to give them fashion advice and just hope no one kills each other over it later? If you accept the idea that God is an incomprehensible being that exists outside the cosmological order, then you can't make recommendations about how God should act because you do not know his circumstances or his will. The Church would claim that you are making a lot of assumptions about a being whose true nature can never fully be known. They would also claim that God has already revealed part of himself through Christ and his ministry so that is what we must rely upon. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Simplest answer is that since it and the Bible are mutually exclusive (since the entire point of the Bible is "Jesus is the son of God" and the Koran starts with "God has no sons"), you just go off of which one you feel has more truth to it. Well this is the natural response, but then it blows away any idea of Scripture as an authoritative source for revealed knowledge about the divine. Plus then you have Kyrie telling us the Koran is obviously false because it disagrees with him about Jesus, which is a pretty arrogant presumption for a mere mortal like him to claim the right to judge the Holy Word of Allah the All-Wise and All-Powerful, handed down to us through the Prophet as Allah in His Wisdom saw fit to do. So shut up and accept it, puny humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Or, maybe just maybe, the bible was written by people and that's not a big deal. That might be the reasonable conclusion. And generally speaking someone who professes an ultimate concern for Jesus as the Christ, believes in the Trinity, and affirms Jesus as the Logos, is very hard to characterize as a heathen. I might occasionally be a heretic, but it's actually shocking how in line I am with orthodoxy most of the time. So the question remains, were those fallible people notably suffused with the presence of the Holy Spirit, or some God-channeling pneuma, to write this stuff down? I mean this is where it all falls apart. If they made a lot of mistakes why assume they didn't make the biggest mistake? They lied. You know they made it Brandor. They made the mistake of telling lies about what they heard and saw. Ain't no God. Ain't no God. Ain't no God. You know it and I know it. Come on son. Come on son. Come on son. Come on. Were they desert morons? Yes. Just let go. Let go. Let go. Stop all the bullshit. You profess "ultimate concern"? Don't let these desert rapists make a liar out of you. You don't believe in any of it, come on. Come on! Come on! I'm sick of this poo poo you loving throwback! You loving novelty! Gah, your pretend tools make me sick!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
ThisQuoProQuid posted:Catholicism accepts the Bible as inspired and the Qu'ran as not because that is what the Church teaches. The Bible did not come as a pre-packaged list of texts but was compiled over centuries by early Christian leaders as those sources which best make sense of revelation. The Church itself got this authority to discern between texts through its apostolic tradition. It is not a complete account, but it is the best that we can aspire toward. Seems to contradict this QuoProQuid posted:If you accept the idea that God is an incomprehensible being that exists outside the cosmological order, then you can't make recommendations about how God should act because you do not know his circumstances or his will. The Church would claim that you are making a lot of assumptions about a being whose true nature can never truly be known. They would also claim that God has already revealed part of himself through Christ and his ministry so that is what we must rely upon. I mean, are our puny, limited human minds able to judge how an incomprehensible God would reveal Himself, or not? It just kinda seems like you're backing your assertion the Bible is true with "well we figured out it was divine with our good judgment" while deflecting any criticism or question with "oh sorry champ, matters of the divine are beyond our human judgment  "Why should I believe your maybe-they-got-it-maybe-they-didn't I-knew-a-guy-who-knew-a-guy-who tradition poo poo when I've got this other guy telling me Gabriel came down and dictated the Holy Koran to him word for word? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:If you accept the idea that God is an incomprehensible being that exists outside the cosmological order, then you can't make recommendations about how God should act because you do not know his circumstances or his will. The Church would claim that you are making a lot of assumptions about a being whose true nature can never fully be known. They would also claim that God has already revealed part of himself through Christ and his ministry so that is what we must rely upon. However, we CAN comprehend his actions that the Bible claims to have been caused by his hand, and they do not reflect upon him favorably. The idea that Gods actions are not comprehensible because we cannot know his circumstances is overridden by the problem that he understands his actions quite well and how those actions would possibly affect reality, and took those actions anyways. Such as Job, The Great Flood, The Pharaoh, etc. etc. These are actions that, even as a supreme being outside of the cosmological order, he would have to be aware that they are distinctly evil actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:56
|
|
