Jump to content

Why would god............


Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo

Recommended Posts

It follows from biblical theology, and it's no surprise to theologians and philosophers.

It might surprise somebody who knows very little of theology or philosophy, on the other hand.

In his book, Can God Be Free?, William Rowe has argued that if God is unsurpassably good He cannot be free; if He is free, He cannot be unsurpassably good. After following the discussion of this topic through a number of historical figures, Rowe focuses on the recent and contemporary debate. A key claim of Rowe's is that, if there exists an endless series of better and better creatable worlds, then the existence of a morally perfect creator is impossible. I show that this argument is unsound, since a key premise can be proved false from propositions Rowe himself accepts.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displ...line&aid=348249

... just one example from among many about which LaClair apparently has no clue.

... yet another appeal to ridicule from Kearny's resident philosophical ignoramus.

If it's obviously absurd, then the argument would lend itself to a valid deductive syllogism.

Unfortunately, that sort of thing appears to be well beyond the ability of Kearny's resident philosophical ignoramus.

... another argument that would--if it were as obvious as the asserter seems to think--lend itself to the construction of a valid deductive syllogism. 

Why do you suppose LaClair sticks with an argument based on bald assertion instead?

How does that follow?  Via intuition?

I think we learn enough by seeing LaClair continually argue via unsupported assertion.

Let's say we have a rock capable of sense impressions.  When the rock is over 77 degree Fahrenheit, the rock is happy.  Below that temperature, the rock is not happy.  Does it follow that the rock can therefore make either/or moral choices?

The second option (of sufficient intellect) simply ignores the theological nature of God.  Having a good nature means, by definition, that the choice will always be morally good--that's a "moral" choice in one sense, but bad choices are logically eliminated as live options for a being that is absolutely good by its immutable nature.

If we consider Paul's would-be god with its free moral will, then it has already been conceded that this god is not good by nature--and that question is begged.

If one wishes to show that good by nature conflicts with justice, it does not logically serve that purpose to assume without argument that the nature of the being in question is not good by nature.  A fallacy results if the argument is pursued in that fashion.

Why not?  Because you say so?

Or because of the straw-man definition of "all-powerful" that skeptics love to introduce in their arguments?

It's worth noting that Paul is lying in suggesting that I am a "self-proclaimed guru of theology and philosophy" (I haven't remotely claimed either, let alone both).

I'll affirm that I believe I'm better at both than is Paul LaClair, however, basing that claim on abundant evidence (such as LaClair's current post).  If Paul thinks he's at or near guru-level in theology and philosophy, then perhaps he thinks that justifies his claim such that he isn't lying.

"... is God the creator of all reality or is he a part of it?"

Obviously, an eternal god would be part of reality if not all of reality prior to any acts of creation.  It's not a difficult point to ponder, nor does it make any contribution to any anti-theological argument.

LaClair would have an argument, here, if it were impossible to have a will that is not capable of choosing ill.

("so-called worshipers"?)  :)

Why are jealousy and anger supposedly inferior human attributes according to our so-called Paul LaClair?

Can LaClair cure himself (even temporarily) from argument-by-assertion affliction?

As I keep saying, these discussions aren’t about anything real.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic...html#repetition

And he doesn't stop repeating it even after the fallacious nature of his approach is pointed out.

Strange, isn't it?

The theists' arguments are like cartoons, where the animator can make up and change the laws of nature and all the rules on the fly. All the discussions are about are the conceptualizations people have of imaginary universes with imaginary gods and devils and an imaginary set of rules, which explains why those rules keep changing depending on the circumstances and the setting of the discussion.

Well, at least the theists in these discussions have been able to avoid re-defining "universal" so that it means the same as ~(not)universal.

Paul is simply glossing over the fact that he made assertions that--by his own words--can only apply to the "imaginary universes" he now derides.

The result is that Paul is trying to award himself a consolation prize for failing in his original argument (my argument's a flop, but your theologies still aren't real! Nyah-nyah!).  But the kicker is that fact that his would-be consolation is just another flop of an argument (arguing by assertion that the "imaginary universes" are not real).

Yet another proof that Paul qualifies as Kearny's resident philosophical ignoramus.

Bryan, Red Letter, 2dim, et. al., constantly keep re-drawing their little imaginary universes to maintain some semblance of consistency so they don’t have to think too hard or (Sam Harris forbid) change their minds. Bryan couldn’t even get that right.  :lol:  :lol:  :P

Should Paul provide an example where the model was re-drawn?  Or should his argument-by-assertion be taken as true without the benefit of evidence?

Of course, we could assume the opposite proposition, and say that God does have free will, in which case it is possible to be morally and ethically perfect (this is being “really perfect,” which Bryan attributes to “God nature,” another concept he or someone just made up out of thin air) and still have free will. So then there would be no reason for God to create us without the God nature that would keep us from screwing up, and poof, there goes the Garden of Eden snafu and with it your entire theology.

If we assume that God does have free (moral) will, then we have erased the biblical doctrine of the goodness of god as an immutable part of his nature.  If I had done that, then I could rightly be accused of re-drawing the universe, at least to the point of dropping biblical theology in order to achieve self-consistency.

Within this framework, we would still have a god who was descriptively perfectly good (not good in terms of immutable nature but good in terms of descriptive action--potentially subject to change).  And Adam would be exactly that, also, with the caveat that Adam was also descriptively good only up until the point he chose wrong.  Obviously, a being who chose wrong could not be good by his immutable nature, and neither could he be descriptively good in a universal sense (barring the LaClairian re-definition of that term).

Either way, LaClair's argument flops.

So either way you want to tell the story, there’s no way to reconcile a “really, really perfect” and omnipotent god with an entire species of morally deficient beings supposedly created in his image.

Heh.  All you need now is the argument that would support the assertion.  Pardon me if I don't hold my breath for the duration of the wait.

We’ve been making that point all along, but it took Bryan to demonstrate how inescapable the conclusion really is.

The conclusion is light-years from inescapable--but exceptionally amateurish would-be philosophers my be excused, perhaps, for thinking otherwise.

So my hat is off to our master philosopher. As Daffy might say, “Well done, Roscoe!”  B)

Funny stuff.  LaClair really appears to think he's made his point without another busload of fallacies.

If God isn't free, then why should we wish to be free? Why wouldn't God make us just like his perfect self? No need for free will if God doesn't need it.

You've been checkmated, Bryan. For the third time at least.

As for jealousy and anger, you can choose those as attributes to aspire to if you like. Many of us see them as human deficiencies and therefore cannot ascribe them to a morally superior being. There's nothing of factual "proof" in any of these discussions because there's no frame of reference; the entire discussion insofar as you try to put it into the realm of reality is purely hypothetical. The point of these discussions is where they lead us. They lead you to believing that eternal torment is part of justice, but you can't say why except to repeat the claim in another form. I say it would serve no purpose and therefore is not just, and furthermore does not have good effects on people for all the reasons that have been mentioned by me and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If God isn't free, then why should we wish to be free?

You're free to wish you weren't free.

:lol:

Why wouldn't God make us just like his perfect self? No need for free will if God doesn't need it.

Strictly speaking, it's true that free will is not an obvious logical necessity (that is, a thing that must be true in all possible worlds). That doesn't mean that a greater good could not result from the creation of being with a free moral will, however--and LaClair has yet to address that point, though it was broached some time ago.

You've been checkmated, Bryan. For the third time at least.

In chess, there's not normally any penalty for falsely declaring "checkmate"--particularly if it's accidental (as when the one calling "checkmate" actually believes that the board has reached that point).

I showed that the claims of checkmate were wrong. Insisting that they're correct without addressing my riposte is disingenuous.

As for jealousy and anger, you can choose those as attributes to aspire to if you like.

Apparently LaClair has decided that dodging the question is the correct response to my question.

Many of us see them as human deficiencies and therefore cannot ascribe them to a morally superior being.

Fallacy of appeal to the people.

There's nothing of factual "proof" in any of these discussions because there's no frame of reference; the entire discussion insofar as you try to put it into the realm of reality is purely hypothetical.

Perfecting the irony, LaClair offers no proof that there is no proof in any of these discussions. Thus, it may well be that there is proof in these discussions--how will we know if we don't blunder along with LaClair to the tune of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

If M&M/Mars could put peanuts in their candy like LaClair puts them in his posts, the Snickers bar would be a TARDIS.

The point of these discussions is where they lead us. They lead you to believing that eternal torment is part of justice, but you can't say why except to repeat the claim in another form.

Hmmm. Paul repeats the lie that was refuted earlier.

There seems little excuse for repeating his lie. If he hasn't read my posts, then he's speaking as though he knows what he's talking about, which is false. If he has read my posts, then he is very probably deliberately lying.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=60339

(see just following 5th quotation of LaClair)

You shouldn't allow a handful of dunderheads who offer encouragement to mislead you into thinking your arguments are other than a hopelessly fallacious mess, LaClair (fallacy of appeal to the people, after all).

I say it would serve no purpose and therefore is not just, and furthermore does not have good effects on people for all the reasons that have been mentioned by me and others.

In short, LaClair continues to appeal to the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum (repeating his argument as though it somehow gains strength in the repeating) and completely ignores a great body of philosophical work in favor of ethical systems that are not outcome-based.

LaClair is repeating a fallacy of begging the question (outcome-based morality is correct apparently because he asserts that it is correct). Pointing it out seems to do no good--LaClair argues as though there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fallacious argument.

AKA sleazy lawyer technique #11

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You're free to wish you weren't free.

:lol:

Strictly speaking, it's true that free will is not an obvious logical necessity (that is, a thing that must be true in all possible worlds).  That doesn't mean that a greater good could not result from the creation of being with a free moral will, however--and LaClair has yet to address that point, though it was broached some time ago.

In chess, there's not normally any penalty for falsely declaring "checkmate"--particularly if it's accidental (as when the one calling "checkmate" actually believes that the board has reached that point).

I showed that the claims of checkmate were wrong.  Insisting that they're correct without addressing my riposte is disingenuous.

Apparently LaClair has decided that dodging the question is the correct response to my question.

Fallacy of appeal to the people.

Perfecting the irony, LaClair offers no proof that there is no proof in any of these discussions.  Thus, it may well be that there is proof in these discussions--how will we know if we don't blunder along with LaClair to the tune of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

If M&M/Mars could put peanuts in their candy like LaClair puts them in his posts, the Snickers bar would be a TARDIS.

Hmmm.  Paul repeats the lie that was refuted earlier.

There seems little excuse for repeating his lie.  If he hasn't read my posts, then he he's speaking as though he knows what he's talking about, which is false.  If he has read my posts, then he is very probably deliberately lying.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=60339

(see just following 5th quotation of LaClair)

You shouldn't allow a handful of dunderheads who offer encouragement to mislead you into thinking your arguments are other than a hopelessly fallacious mess, LaClair (fallacy of appeal to the people, after all).

In short, LaClair continues to appeal to the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum (repeating his argument as though it somehow gains strength in the repeating) and completely ignores a great body of philosophical work in favor of ethical systems that are not outcome-based.

LaClair is repeating a fallacy of begging the question (outcome-based morality is correct apparently because he asserts that it is correct).  Pointing it out seems to do no good--LaClair argues as though there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fallacious argument.

AKA sleazy lawyer technique #11

The problem with “obvious logical necessit(ies)” is that they’re usually not true. There’s usually an assumption buried in them, which we’re not aware of, and which renders the so-called “proof” meaningless. You can talk about the “obvious logical necessities” attendant on angels dancing on the head of a pin all you like, you’re still not saying anything.

Paul’s point was that if God and his “divine Son” (who wasn’t really his son since he was part of God in the first place and therefore non-contingent) could have free will and yet not sin because of his divine nature, so could we: all God had to do was give us the same divine nature as he had, and of course he would especially if he loved us. Instead of addressing that horn of the dilemma, Bryan chooses the other horn and says God has no free will; Paul’s response is “very well, then, if no free will is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me. Take away my free will, I'll serve God as he intended to be served and I'll be happy.” Helluvan argument, so to speak.

Now comes Bryan saying that conceivably God could create a greater good . . . by doing what? Why, by making us of a nature other than his own. But wait a minute, God’s nature is perfect, so how can you do better than that? And you can only argue that this non-choice achieved a greater good if you do the same thing Bryan always does on these points, which is to ignore all meaning. A universe in which most of God’s children are going to suffer in exquisite torment forever is not better than a universe in which we are all happy and just like God. I hate to be dogmatic here, but it seems a rather obvious point. Bryan doesn’t see that because to him everything is about logical necessity and nothing is about what it really means, e.g., how do you measure good except in relation to someone’s welfare and happiness? The term "good" is meaningless without its real-world context in the lives of living beings. Paul’s reference to jealousy and anger isn’t a dodge, but an attempt to bring the discussion into the realm of what is real, which is obviously not a place where Bryan wishes to be or perhaps is even capable of being.

Of course, the whole discussion is absurd because according to Bryan God had no choice in the matter. We were created exactly as we had to be created, God had no choice in the matter at all, or in anything else. So much for “thy will be done.” So much for God’s little wager with Satan in the book of Job. What are we now to do with those picayune little details?

Don’t give up your day job, Bryan, because you S**K at philosophy.

Oh, and by the way, it's obvious you don't play chess either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest DingoDave

This little snippet might help to illustrate the ludicrous nature of the doctrine of the 'fall of man' and 'inherited sin'. The link to the full story is at the bottom of this post.

Programming Adam

When you read this story and really think about it, you realize that Adam and Eve are a very special case. Look at it this way. When normal people like you and me are born as babies, we know absolutely nothing. We have to learn about our native language, culture, rules, laws, history, etc. from our parents over the course of many years. Adam, on the other hand, is created from the dust of the earth. Like Frosty the snowman, Adam, "came to life one day." The instant that he is created in the Bible, Adam is an adult who can speak and think.

This raises a number of questions about Adam's state of mind:

-Where did Adam's initial language come from? God must have pre-programmed that in.

-Where did Adam get his knowledge of how to eat, how to drink, how to bathe, how to walk, etc.? All of these skills normally come after several years of training. God must have pre-programmed them into Adam too.

-Where did Adam learn how to respond in conversation, how to be polite, how to interact with others, etc.? Normally a parent teaches all of these social skills as well. God must have pre-programmed them into Adam.

-How old is Adam? Did God pre-program Adam at the level of a 5-year-old? A 10-year-old? A teenager? A twenty-something? A middle-aged man? A senior citizen? The Bible does not say, but it is important. If God has pre-programmed Adam at the level of a five-year-old, or even a teenager, then it would be hard to get too mad at Adam for making a mistake. Five-year-olds and teens make mistakes constantly -- that's how they learn. On the other hand, if God has pre-programmed Adam at the level of a twenty-something, then Adam's entire world view, attitude, moral code, political stances, attitudes toward women (see chapter 15) and so on have been pre-set by God. By age 25, most humans have been through 12 years of school plus college, they have dated a number of people and are married, etc., so they have stored a huge amount of information and experience in their brains. Albert Einstein at age 26 was married, had a child and had finished the theory of relativity. God could have programmed Adam with the same level on knowledge, understanding and experience that Einstein had at age 26. In that case Adam might have made different decisions, and humanity would have advanced technologically at a remarkable pace.

The point is simple: God directly controlled every single thought in Adam's (and Eve's) head through this initial programming.

So why is God surprised in any way by the events that unfold in the garden, and why is there any need to punish mankind? Since God is the one who created and pre-programmed all of the actors, God made all of the decisions on what would happen in Eden. When God asks "Have you eaten from the tree that I told you not to eat from?", why bother asking? God programmed it to happen. God can see the full swath of history -- billions of years forward and backward down to the atomic level. That is what omniscience is all about. God created Adam and Eve, God pre-programmed Adam and Eve, so God knows exactly what Adam, Eve and the serpent will do together. Adam and Eve were doomed from the very beginning.

This is what makes the creation story and the notion of "original sin" seem so ridiculous to non-Christians. Adam did not "sin." For one thing, Adam would have no way to know what a sin is until he ate the fruit. For another, Adam had no control whatsoever over what he did and therefore it was not a "sin" to act that way.

Responding to God

If Adam was smart, what he would say to God in response to a question like, "What are you doing?" is something like this:

"Look, God, you tell me. You are the one who created me. You are the one who arranged the neurons in my brain. You are the one who created human nature. You are the one who pre-programmed me with my language, my knowledge of the world, my code of ethics and everything else. You are also the one who created and pre-programmed Eve, and you are the one who created and pre-programmed a talking serpent. You have absolute control over every single thing that is happening here. You are the one who can see billions of years into the past and the future. You tell me -- what am I doing? Quite obviously, I am doing exactly what you designed and programmed me to do. How could I possibly do anything else?"

What is even more bizarre is God's response to Adam's "sin." Here's what an all-knowing, all-loving God might have said to Adam:

"You know, Adam, you are right. I created you. I arranged every cell in your body and brain. I created human nature. And I pre-programmed you, just as you say. I know exactly how you think and what you will do in every situation. In addition, since I am all-knowing and beyond time, I can see exactly, nanosecond by nanosecond, how your life will proceed. I can see, in exact nanosecond detail, how the lives of the trillions of people who will follow you will unfold. I know everything. I understand everything. I am perfect. In creating you the way I did, I did so perfectly and with complete foreknowledge. I understand exactly why you ate from the tree. In fact, I already knew exactly what you would do when I planted the tree. I am glad that you now understand the difference between good and evil. Otherwise I would not have put the tree there. "

That, unfortunately, is not what our all-knowing, all-loving God says. God decides instead to play the role of a total jerk...

When you think about it like this, you cannot miss the huge problem with the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be the error-free product of a perfect, omniscient being. Everything you have been told since birth tells you that the Bible is the perfect word of God. However, your common sense tells you something far different. When you actually read the Bible, what you find is that it is ridiculous. None of this happened. None of it came from God. All of it is a fairy tale. The Bible, quite obviously, was written by primitive men rather than God. "Original sin" is completely meaningless because it is an ancient fable.

From: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/original-sin.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Regarding 'The fall of man' and 'Inherited sin'

PROGRAMMING ADAM

When you read this story and really think about it, you realize that Adam and Eve are a very special case. Look at it this way. When normal people like you and me are born as babies, we know absolutely nothing. We have to learn about our native language, culture, rules, laws, history, etc. from our parents over the course of many years. Adam, on the other hand, is created from the dust of the earth. Like Frosty the snowman, Adam, "came to life one day." The instant that he is created in the Bible, Adam is an adult who can speak and think.

The point is simple: God directly controlled every single thought in Adam's (and Eve's) head through this initial programming.

So why is God surprised in any way by the events that unfold in the garden, and why is there any need to punish mankind? Since God is the one who created and pre-programmed all of the actors, God made all of the decisions on what would happen in Eden. When God asks "Have you eaten from the tree that I told you not to eat from?", why bother asking? God programmed it to happen. God can see the full swath of history -- billions of years forward and backward down to the atomic level. That is what omniscience is all about. God created Adam and Eve, God pre-programmed Adam and Eve, so God knows exactly what Adam, Eve and the serpent will do together. Adam and Eve were doomed from the very beginning.

This is what makes the creation story and the notion of "original sin" seem so ridiculous to non-Christians. Adam did not "sin." For one thing, Adam would have no way to know what a sin is until he ate the fruit. For another, Adam had no control whatsoever over what he did and therefore it was not a "sin" to act that way.

Responding to God

If Adam was smart, what he would say to God in response to a question like, "What are you doing?" is something like this:

"Look, God, you tell me. You are the one who created me. You are the one who arranged the neurons in my brain. You are the one who created human nature. You are the one who pre-programmed me with my language, my knowledge of the world, my code of ethics and everything else. You are also the one who created and pre-programmed Eve, and you are the one who created and pre-programmed a talking serpent. You have absolute control over every single thing that is happening here. You are the one who can see billions of years into the past and the future. You tell me -- what am I doing? Quite obviously, I am doing exactly what you designed and programmed me to do. How could I possibly do anything else?"

What is even more bizarre is God's response to Adam's "sin." Here's what an all-knowing, all-loving God might have said to Adam:

"You know, Adam, you are right. I created you. I arranged every cell in your body and brain. I created human nature. And I pre-programmed you, just as you say. I know exactly how you think and what you will do in every situation. In addition, since I am all-knowing and beyond time, I can see exactly, nanosecond by nanosecond, how your life will proceed. I can see, in exact nanosecond detail, how the lives of the trillions of people who will follow you will unfold. I know everything. I understand everything. I am perfect. In creating you the way I did, I did so perfectly and with complete foreknowledge. I understand exactly why you ate from the tree. In fact, I already knew exactly what you would do when I planted the tree. I am glad that you now understand the difference between good and evil. Otherwise I would not have put the tree there. "

That, unfortunately, is not what our all-knowing, all-loving God says. God decides instead to play the role of a total jerk.

-From the website 'Why won't God heal amputees?'

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/original-sin.htm

Just out of interest, let's take a look at what the Bible tells us were Adam and Eve's motivations for eating the apple.

Genesis 3:1-6

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

So, according to the Bible myth, Adam and Eve's 'crime' for which the entire Earth is still supposedly being cursed to this day, was a desire for wisdom.

I for one am glad that Eve ate that apple, or according to the Bible, we humans would still be as ignorant as the beasts of the field.

Obviously God didn't want his pet humans becoming too clever, for fear of losing control over them.

That my friends, is the moral of the whole silly story.

Just as an aside, the Genesis story plainly states that both good and evil already existed in the universe prior Adam and Eve eating the apple. It's just that they weren't aware of it. Adam and Eve didn't introduce evil into the world by eating the apple, they simply developed the ability to recognise it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Red-letter edition wrote:

‘About Hell, God doesn't describe its creation, but you are right, He created it. If He created it, of course it would be considered good/perfect. It is the perfect and appropriate place for the punishment of sinners who have rejected God's redemption. Remember, God is just. Of course you and I disagree on justice.  You don't associate it with fairness, you argue for rehabilitation.’

It should be obvious to any sane person, which one of you holds the more accurate and morally acceptable concept of fairness and justice. (Hint) It isn’t you.

And

“He is Jesus. He demonstrated His deity by raising Himself from the dead and He gave me this promise”

Please read your Bible more carefully Red-letter. According to the Bible, it was God in Heaven who raised Jesus from the dead. Not Jesus himself.

And

“Therefore, Jesus had no beginning. However, he took on human flesh through Mary.”

The only reason that a virgin birth was postulated for Jesus in the first place, was for the purposes of ensuring a sinless human who would fit their idea of the perfect human sacrifice.

The ignoramuses who formulated this absurd doctrine believed that it was the father alone who contributed the ingredients that went into making a baby. To them, the mother was merely an 'incubator' or a 'fallow field', just waiting for the father’s seed to be planted in her, ready to sprout and grow. That is why they referred to the father’s semen as 'seed', and why they compared a childless woman to a 'barren field'. They meant these terms to be taken quite literally.

Of course, with the advent of modern genetics, we now know that the woman contributes 50% of the genetic material for the new child. This makes the virgin birth doctrine both redundant and even more ridiculous than it already was. If the ancients had any idea of genetics, they certainly would not have postulated something as absurd as a virgin birth to account for the sinlessness of their god-man.

The virgin birth doctrine will only work under this seed/ field paradigm. According to this paradigm, the god Yahweh was Jesus literal father who contributed all the genetic material (his god seed), in order to create a sinless baby who would be untainted by original sin. Poor Mary was seen as merely the incubator, or vehicle for God’s little 'homunculus', and not an actual contributor of genetic material.

I hope that I have managed to make this concept clear for you.

Paul wrote:

The fundamentalists don’t think we’ve answered the question why hell would be unjust, but we have. Strife has, I have, and others too. The fundamentalists are comfortable, apparently, with someone burning in hell for eternity. They can be perfectly content knowing that Grandma is crying out in torment while they’re having a great time in heaven. There’s something really sick about that, and it explains a lot about why our culture is so indifferent to suffering and so willing to allow it to persist…The fundamentalists imagine a god who would be as comfortable with hell as they are. It says a lot about them. It says nothing about anything that is real….But of course given the choice between diminishing God and giving up your pacifier, you’re perfectly content to diminish God. You don't care whether most of humanity burns in hell. You don't care if you paint God as an ignorant and ineffectual boob. But under no circumstances are you willing to give up your pacifier and your security blanket and your macabre lullaby (“Go to hell, go to hell, go to hell all my babies . . .” Imagine it to the tune of Brahms’ lullaby.), so you desperately hang onto your notion of this supposedly loving god who is perfectly content to see his children abandoned to suffer eternal torment in hell. And you’re just fine with that because you get to keep your security blanket and your pacifier.

Please allow me to share with you a little article I found on my travels around the internet. I believe that it fairly describes the true horror of the concept of an eternal Hell.

"Imagine how much hatred you would have to have for another person to take his hand and press it against a hot stove, and hold it there while he struggles and screams in pain.

Now imagine, not just burning a person's hand, but setting his entire body on fire; and now imagine doing it not just for a few moments, not for hours or days or years or millennia, but forever. And now imagine tormenting not just one, but thousands, millions, or billions of people like this. Inflicting on each and every one of them a suffering beyond imagination or description, for every single instant without rest or relief throughout all the endless span of eternity.

And this is the work of a good and loving god?

If there is such a place as Hell, it could not possibly be the creation of any being worthy of the appellations "loving" or "caring"; it could only be the work of an evil, sadistic monster.

Some apologists have put forth a defence against this argument, claiming that because God is infinitely good, a person who chooses to defy him is committing an "infinite crime" and therefore deserves an infinity of suffering as punishment. But consider: What does it mean to commit a crime against someone? Does the essence of a crime not lie in harm? Not all harm done to a person rises to the standard of a crime, but it cannot be said that you have committed a crime against someone if they have not been harmed in any way.

But God, by his nature, can never be harmed. According to the mainstream religions, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect; he lacks nothing, he needs nothing, and certainly he cannot be injured or diminished in any way by anything a human being could ever do. Therefore, it is impossible to commit any crime against him at all, much less an infinite one. We may harm ourselves, or other people, but we can never harm God, and it defies justice to pay back an act that causes zero harm with an act that causes infinite harm.

Why can't you repent in Hell and be released? What happens if one of the damned says, "I can't take this any more. I understand now that I sinned and I'm sorry. God, please forgive me and let me out of here"? Will this work? If not, why not? If there's a rule that says it's too late to repent once you're in Hell, who made that rule and why?"

- Ebon Musings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding 'The fall of man' and 'Inherited sin'

PROGRAMMING ADAM

When you read this story and really think about it, you realize that Adam and Eve are a very special case. Look at it this way. When normal people like you and me are born as babies, we know absolutely nothing. We have to learn about our native language, culture, rules, laws, history, etc. from our parents over the course of many years. Adam, on the other hand, is created from the dust of the earth. Like Frosty the snowman, Adam, "came to life one day." The instant that he is created in the Bible, Adam is an adult who can speak and think.

The point is simple: God directly controlled every single thought in Adam's (and Eve's) head through this initial programming.

Non sequitur.

Is it impossible in principle for scientists to build an android with language abilities built-in while preserving the entity's potential for free will?

If the answer is "no," then somebody is fallaciously begging the question.

Establish the point via argument, if it's such a key point.

<removed argument that rests on the fallacy>

Heh. There was more than I thought.

<removed more argument that rested on the fallacy>

Wow. D-Dave is the Energizer Bunny of arguing based on a foundation of fallacious thinking.

<removed still more argument that rested on the aforementioned fallacy>

  Just out of interest, let's take a look at what the Bible tells us were Adam and Eve's motivations for eating the apple.

Genesis 3:1-6

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

So, according to the Bible myth, Adam and Eve's 'crime' for which the entire Earth is still supposedly being cursed to this day, was a desire for wisdom.

Ah, at last we're on to a new fallacy!

D-Dave's statement here is simply false, and it's hard to see how he could have acquired his mistaken opinion.

There wasn't anything wrong with the desire for wisdom, or else God could have punished Eve for merely thinking that wisdom is good (and desiring it). The problem in these types of situations is not the particular desire, but the method employed for achieving the ends. Consider sexual satisfaction as a parallel. There's nothing wrong with wanting sexual satisfaction, per se. On the other hand, there is something wrong with, say, drugging your date so that she cannot resist your advances.

In Dingo Dave's world, perhaps he would defend the actions of the date rapist by claiming that the poor defendant is being punished merely for his desire for sexual satisfaction ...

I for one am glad that Eve ate that apple, or according to the Bible, we humans would still be as ignorant as the beasts of the field.

That doesn't follow, either. Adam, for example, had the intellectual capacity, according to the text, to give the various animals their names. Would a cow have been able to do that?

Obviously God didn't want his pet humans becoming too clever, for fear of losing control over them.

That my friends, is the moral of the whole silly story.

:lol:

So D-Dave goes from asserting that God had and maintained total control of all of A&E's actions all the way to asserting that God acted out of fear of losing control the beings he supposedly totally controls.

DingoDave, you have fashioned an argument that is internally inconsistent (it contradicts itself).

Just as an aside, the Genesis story plainly states that both good and evil already existed in the universe prior Adam and Eve eating the apple. It's just that they weren't aware of it. Adam and Eve didn't introduce evil into the world by eating the apple, they simply developed the ability to recognise it.

Does "the world" mean the exact same thing as "the universe"?

If they didn't mean the same thing, then is it possible that Adam and Eve did introduced sin to the world while not introducing it to the universe?

BTW, welcome back, DingoDave.

But you should stick to posting about science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Just because I can reply. Paul hasn't taken that right away from me despite he thinks he can walk on water. I also want to see if this can be the longest post on here. I was thinking about attaching the Constitution. Paul doe not give a hoot anyway.

Nobody said otherwise.  Do you deny that rocks are morally perfect?  That is, without sin?

Adam was morally perfect according to Bryan; everything else is Paul stuffing straw.

Where is it established that having a man nature "wasn't really perfect"?  Certainly that didn't come from me.

The unrelenting irony is just too much.

Paul asserts again that Adam was [im]perfect--and supposedly that puts us right back where we started from (with Paul and Strife asserting Adam's imperfection and having a Serpent of a time getting around to backing the assertion).

I'm glad you see it that way.  Now prove that you're not being insincere by arguing the point instead of taking as true a priori.

What are monkeys and flatulence without a material universe in the first place?  Personal beings and spirit?  The latter would make some sense.  If matter (such as monkeys and monkey-poots) did not exist as some point, then philosophically we need a metaphysic that gives us some idea of how matter came about.  That leaves us with personal v. impersonal and matter v. non-matter in our potential metaphysic.  In the latter case, positing matter before matter existed would seem to beg the question.

We seem to be left with non-matter (transcendent monkey-poots) and the remaining question of whether the monkeys are person and plural (Ockham's razor bids us keep to the minimum number of monkeys needed, of course).

It's like Paul has never really given these issues serious thought, isn't it?

:lol:

Paul probably doesn't even realize that he committed the fallacy of begging the question yet again.

No doubt the theology of a-theology is an exception--right, Paul?

Why not?  Does Paul have an unspoken and unargued argument that there is no good that would outweigh the majority of the human race spending eternity in hell?  Or is it that he just can't wait to pop off with yet another LaClair Unsupported Assertion ?

If the idea of hell is completely inconsistent with an omnipotent god running the show, then why can't LaClair illustrate that point without committing an obvious fallacy?

We're still waiting.

:lol:

Ah, yes.  All humans are human, and since humans have values therefore human values are correct values--or something equally idiotic--except that my version of Paul's argument is undoubtedly clearer in its purported logic.

The person who accepts Paul's supposed reasoning on that point knows literally next to nothing about philosophy or ethics.

The fundamentalists are comfortable, apparently, with someone burning in hell for eternity. They can be perfectly content knowing that Grandma is crying out in torment while they’re having a great time in heaven.

That remains to be seen, actually.

In terms of the argument, of course, we find LaClair once again appealing fallaciously to outrage (he lauds a special "intuition" exemption for his use of this fallacy--I wouldn't advise anybody from the other side to try to exercise that exemption--there's no doubt Paul will object).

Additionally, there's a circumstantial ad hominem in his argument.  Since the "fundamentalists" are happy with Granny roasting on the infernal brazier, therefore their arguments are wrong (implicit).

There’s something really sick about that, and it explains a lot about why our culture is so indifferent to suffering and so willing to allow it to persist.

Indeed--it also makes one suspect that maybe Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all closet theists.

Seriously, it seems like Paul has exhausted his pouch of tricks (normally a bag, I know, but Paul's repertoire is so tiny that "bag" seems too generous).

Beg the question, administer ad hominem attacks, cry outrage ... blather, rinse, repeat.

Hell wouldn’t serve any purpose, and they can’t identify one.

Assumes ends-based morality, thus begging the question.

They just keep saying that it’s fair, never mind the fact that eternal torment would be completely pointless and therefore is neither fair nor just.

Assumes ends-based morality, thus begging the question.  Ask LaClair why ethical systems such as Kant's receive no consideration and chances are you'll be ignored.

Never mind the fact that punishing someone for sincerely believing in a religion other than Christianity is not fair at all.

Begs the question instead of addressing the question (blather, rinse, repeat).

Never mind the fact that in their theology moral goodness has nothing to do with it, it’s all about “accepting Jesus” --- until, of course, one of them wants to ask whether Hitler or Manson should burn in hell. Then suddenly it becomes relevant. How does Hitler’s morality, or lack thereof, suddenly become relevant?

In contrast to the above, I pointed out that Paul was offering a distraction from the justice of hell by talking about salvation through Christ, since if one took Jesus completely out of the picture then everyone would end up in hell--and we'd still have the issue of the justice of hell to talk about.  If Paul doesn't like the distraction of the 'accepting Jesus" stuff, then let him heed my suggestion and avoid the issue from his end of things.

I don't suppose Paul will want to do that, because it puts a throws a spanner into the works of his straw-man and red herring assembly lines.

Simple: It’s all about the theists telling their little story and singing themselves to sleep with their little lullabies. Whatever soothes their minds and lets them hold onto their pacifier and security blanket is a true argument; whatever challenges their beliefs is not only false, but the work of the devil. Let most of the world burn in hell, just don’t take away Bryan’s and Red’s pacifier and security blanket. There’s not even a discussion to be had here. The hard-core fundamentalists conceive of justice in one way, and we conceive of it in another.

Ad hominem (blather, rinse, repeat).

Each person will decide for himself what is right.

They will?  How does that affect the universality of Paul's system of values?

The fundamentalists imagine a god who would be as comfortable with hell as they are. It says a lot about them. It says nothing about anything that is real.

... and right back to Paul's ad hominem fallacy.

Here's the reality of this argument:  Paul asserts that hell is inconsistent with the (alleged) goodness of god.  That assertion is a reality.

Paul fails to provide a logical case for his assertion without committing fallacies.  That's reality.

Yet Paul ignores these problems with his argument.  Isn't Paul the one ignoring reality, here?

I’ve known plenty of good people, wonderful people. People who would give me the shirt off their back if I needed it and would rather suffer harm themselves than harm another person. No one forced them, it’s just who they are. Yet we know that people are born with genetically based dispositions, which are then influenced and refined by their environments. Not one of us who is living now or ever has lived wasn’t a product of these two influences. Not one of us is an entity unto ourselves. It’s all genetics and environment.

Paul just denied libertarian free will, and probably undercut any possibility of articulating a coherent moral system within his worldview.

You can count on the fact that he'll avoid addressing the issue.

At what point does free will cease? Is it even there in the first place?

In Paul's system, the best you can get is compatibilist free will.

This is not just a rhetorical question; the brightest minds in the cognitive neurosciences recognize that this is an extremely controversial question with no clear answer, and the more we study the mind and the organic brain that creates it, the less clear any answer becomes.

Unfortunately, that didn't stop Paul from ruling out libertarian free will a priori (begging the question)--but chances are a neuroscientist would be inclined to do the same thing.

It would be laughable that the fundamentalists are still trying to answer it through slavish reliance on 3,000-year-old texts, if not for the amount of damage they have caused and continue to cause doing things that way.

Calvinists tend toward compatibilism (or, in increasing numbers, Molinism).  Various sects of Christianity represent the entire breadth of the free will issue.

Paul's engaged in ad hominem attacks again, of course (blather, rinse, repeat).

I’m not seeing in any of this how we humans were of any service to God, if we accept Christian theology as true. I’m not seeing any explanation why the entire human species should be punished, and our nature fundamentally altered, by the supposed sin of the mythical first pair. I’m not seeing any answer why Adam’s supposed sin corrupted us all; my children don’t always do right by me and I don’t always do right by them, but it doesn’t break our fellowship, and yet Bryan would have us believe that our patient, loving father in heaven would allow it to break our relationship with him --- what a ridiculous response that is.

See?  Paul gets us primed for the supposed contradiction, but when the moment of truth comes, he gives us moral indignation instead.

Fallacious appeal to outrage (blather, rinse, repeat).

As for inheritance, who’s in charge here? An omnipotent God would have complete control over what was passed on and what wasn’t. There’s still no answer why all succeeding generations should be punished for the supposed sins of the first two.

More to the point, there's no explanation from Paul for his assertion that succeeding generations are being punished for the sins of the "first two."

Paul's reasoning is the same as wondering why water couldn't freeze at 28 degrees Fahrenheit instead of at 32 degrees.  There is no explanation as to why water freezes at 32 degrees, since it could freeze at 28 degrees instead (in principle).

Something tells that me that LaClair is far from being consistent in what he calls an "explanation."

Paul should recognize that I've addressed already with him this type of argumentation.  God could step in any time somebody wished to sin and prevent the ill consequences of the sin (Adam cutting off Jerry's arm).  By Paul's value framework, it is the consequences of an action that determine whether or not it is wrong.  Thus (under Paul's plan), we should be able to do whatever we want and it should be okay because God could have altered the consequences.

Could there be a flaw in ends-based moral reasoning?

Don't expect Paul to consider it.

As for my Catholic background, I left the church for what I considered to be some very good reasons. Just because something is part of Catholic theology doesn't mean that it makes sense or that I accept it.

The problem is that you give no evidence of even knowing about it in some cases.

You want my answers to your questions. OK, here we go.

Anything created by God is contingent--can anything contingent be perfectly perfect in the same sense as a non-contingent God?

1. There is no frame of reference for the question. It’s like asking whether the animals living on Pluto can fly.

No, it isn't.  The question requires no frame of reference.  It uses standard philosophical terms in a very simple manner.

Apparently LaClair isn't equipped for that type of question.

This is very good evidence that Paul knows next to nothing about philosophy.

Do you talk to yourself when you're lonely, Paul? If not, why not, given your suggestion here?

2. Incomprehensible.

You don't know how to answer whether or not you talk to yourself?  Just how simple do questions need to be?  Or is that too tough a question to ask as well?  And the latter one?  And so on?

I'll invite Paul to describe what he saw as the original plan.

3. See # 1.

So, when Paul wrote "According to the Bible, Jesus wouldn’t have needed a woman, which would have been more consistent with the original plan according to Genesis 2" he apparently had absolutely no idea what God's original plan was in the first place--making it hard to see how Paul could reason from a failure to achieve a plan that he could not discern that the plan itself had gone awry.

I do?

4. Incomprehensible.

Apparently Paul is playing the exceptionally childish game of deliberately trying to answer (some of) the questions without their context instead of within their original context.

My intent was to point out how many questions of mine Paul had skipped in his zeal to reel off his own list of questions.  In this response, Paul does not appear to have made a sincere attempt to provide answers.

It overstretches credulity that Paul could not make sense of this exchange:

Paul:  Bryan accuses me of skirting the issue when I point out that no one living today is responsible for Adam and Eve’s supposed first sin.

Bryan:  I do?

I don't see it.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=59375

Paul apparently enjoys the red herring/potential strawman of supposing that the present generation is responsible for Adam's sin.

Enjoyment aside, can he demonstrate its relevance?

5. Its relevance is the proper assignment of moral responsibility, which is a necessary foundation for any just punishment, let alone condemnation.

I asked for a demonstration of the relevance, not an assertion of the relevance.  An inclination to sin is an imperfection, isn't it?  Does it matter who is responsible for an inclination to sin when it comes to individual perfection? 

If I have free will, and I choose an option other than the best (moral) option, how is God supposed to stop me?

6. If you were really perfect and God really existed, he wouldn’t have to stop you from doing the wrong thing. You’d make the right choice, the same as no one has to force you to drink water. You do it of your own free will, but you do it and so does everyone else. Your problem is that you keep engrafting the world as it is onto the world you imagine. You keep shifting between the two. You must in order to maintain your belief system, but it’s completely illogical. If you want to imagine a perfect and omnipotent god who created us with the intent of sharing his happiness, I can't stop you, but you can’t then make this god less than omnipotent just because you have no other way to maintain your belief system.

Paul's immediate response is to dodge the question by insisting on changing the scenario.  I wonder how he'd like it if I responded to his questions that way?  So much for the Golden Rule.

Paul dodged the question instead of addressing it.

Could Paul be illogical enough to suppose that since what I wrote doesn't explain what he says it doesn't explain that therefore it doesn't explain anything?

7. No.

:lol:

Let's review what preceded my question:

Paul:  Then Bryan offers this: “Original sin isn't required to explain the world. It's only required to explain why somebody who is "good"--if there really were such a thing--would be under the threat of hell. Original sin is not required in order to explain everyday sin.” But it doesn’t explain anything.

Bryan:  It does explain why somebody who is supposedly good would be under the threat of hell, actually.

Paul:  It certainly doesn't explain why a loving god would supposedly creates us all in his image wouldn't create us "really good."

It wasn't intended to explain that. That's explainable in its own right.

Could Paul be illogical enough to suppose that since what I wrote doesn't explain what he says it doesn't explain that therefore it doesn't explain anything?

<italics for emphasis>

So what was Paul on about with "it doesn't explain anything"?  Just another example of careless rhetorical excess?

I invite Paul to provide a philosophical justification for his objective and universal values.

8. I told you. I’ll tell you again. Being human carries with it a set of preferences that are universally shared, including preferences for satisfaction of basic needs and wants, health, pleasure, longevity and happiness; in contrast to their counterparts. It’s not a tautology. It’s a fact.

It's amazing that LaClair still trots out this nag of an argument.

Universal, eh?

Which of the universal preferences accounts for suicide attempts?

http://www.who.int/mental_health/preventio...uiciderates/en/

Paul probably knows it's not true, but he calls it "fact."

Where it's not a tautology (and it certainly was tautologous in two of LaClair's presentations), it's a plain old lie.  There is no set of values that is universally shared--not without some colossal fudging on the term "universal" (not to mention "shared").

Not long ago, Paul insisted that human decisions were made up of genetics plus environment, period.  If that's the case, then human values may be manipulated, and it stands to reason that manipulation of one population's values will not affect the values of non-manipulated populations (and who's to say values have not been manipulated in such a fashion as things stand now?).

Paul's account is utterly incoherent.  It is a measure of his philosophical and ethical incompetence that he argues as he does above

We do? Or is that just another one of LaClair's Unsupported Assertions ™?

9. We do what?

We answer a question with a question.  :lol:

It's a pity that Paul skipped over the questions the first time, isn't it?  He can't be bothered to check the context, apparently, so he'll just make like he doesn't get it.

Why couldn't every one of them have had God appear to them in a dream and tell them about Jesus, but then they later forgot about it?

10. You’ve got to be kidding. No, come to think of it, you’re probably serious. OK, then, I’ll give a serious response. Because if God appeared to them in a dream for that purpose, he would appear in such a way that they wouldn’t forget about it. They would reinforce each other in their experience and they would all believe it. In fact, if everyone had exactly the same dream, that would actually be persuasive evidence of something going on. Interesting that it hasn't happened that way. Does it tell you anything? Of course not. It doesn't tell Bryan anything, but it tells those of us who are listening and thinking plenty.

Pay careful attention to Paul's attempt to address the question before he moves to change the subject.

His answer is that God would not do things that way.  Apparently Paul is the one who knows God on an intimate basis.  Paul's God cannot give a person a revelatory dream that the person could forget.  How does God accomplish that?  Apparently by interfering with the human will.  Paul's solutions will consistently appeal to that strategy, I think.

God gives the dream, and then God is apparently responsible for reminding the person about the dream for however long it takes for the person to discuss the dream with others (who likewise have had their memories divinely prodded by Paul's God.

This is why I ask Paul the types of questions I ask him.  When he gets around to giving a serious answer, it helps peel away the ambiguity and show what Paul's true position is.  I think that Paul has difficulty in conceptualizing free will even for the sake of argument, which is why his "solutions" to to the problem of evil in a free will environment consist of causal determinism.

In my experience, Paul's strategy inevitably results in the fallacy of begging the question.

Of course that would put us right back in the position of needing to know whether or not Paul had established a philosophical basis in values sufficient to support his claims. How many weeks have you dodged that burden of proof, LaClair?

11. None.

Apparently LaClair miscounted, failing to realize that asserting against the evidence that a certain system of values is "universal" doesn't count as a philosophical justification.

Could he? What if the others he's supposed to save in the same fashion have not responded in trust as did Moses? Would it be fair to save those who had demonstrated an antipathy toward the notion of their salvation? Would it be fair to save people against their will?

12. Save them from what? Eternal torment in hell? It would never be a possibility in the first place.

Fallacy of begging the question (blather, rinse, repeat).

Each of these three major Christian theological views is immune from Paul's criticism on this point--so who's he arguing against?

13. All of them.

Apparently Paul discounts the immunity I noted in the three cases, but neglected to mention why.  Would he have fallaciously begged the question with that answer, if he had attempted it?  I think it likely.

And you're getting to the supposed contradiction, right?

14. A long time ago.

Did anybody catch it?  Was it that argument by assertion (fallacy) that hell in inconsistent with an perfectly just God (argument by assertion here the equivalent of the fallacy of begging the question).

This is the thing that amuses me so much about Paul.  People who frequent message boards are commonly very interested in making good arguments.  Witness the way Strife got all over the idea of assessing arguments for their validity of reasoning (not that he's any good at it).

Paul seems to have very little of that, which I find quite striking given his profession.  A lawyer, I would think, would be willing and able to provide strong argumentation for his positions, such that it would take work to point out mistakes in reasoning.

Paul's arguments, on the other hand, are guilelessly constructed on basic fallacies such as begging the question and ad hominem.

In what sense would a non-theist accept Jesus, BTW?

15. A non-theist wouldn’t “accept Jesus” in the sense that term is generally used and understood, but he might very well applaud many of the teachings attributed to Jesus. He would do so regardless whether Jesus was actually responsible for them, or even whether “Jesus” actually lived.

Case in point.  Paul's earlier argument was an apparent fallacy of equivocation.  "Believing in" Jesus for salvation is apparently efficacious for the atheist even if it isn't "in the sense the term is generally used and understood."

http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fal...quivocation.asp

Who are these mysterious biblical fundamentalists you've known about? Apparently they aren't Calvinists, Arminians, or Roman Catholics. So what's left?

16. It’s a common strain in fundamentalist thought, regardless of what these groups may claim formally. They’re not unknown to contradict themselves.

Translation:  They're out they're somewhere, but I'm not saying where.

What evidence do I need for my claims, when my claims are focused on challenging your claim that the claims are contradictory?

17. Your claims go far beyond that. Just because you never spell them out doesn’t mean that they aren’t implicit, albeit imprecisely, in your writing.

Hmmm.  No answer to my question, just an implicit and imprecise argument that I make implicit and imprecise arguments in my writing.  So, what kind of proof is required for that type of argument?  And does the standard apply to Paul LaClair as well?

And where is hell mentioned in Genesis, again?

18. How is hell not being mentioned in Genesis germane to the point, whatever you think that point is?

That's the beauty of context.

Paul:  Finally, Bryan offers this: “Some might conclude that God was talking about the things he had made in the context of the passage.” Yes, some would conclude that. Like Bryan, they would quickly look past the problem of God creating hell and pretend it doesn’t exist

Bryan:  And where is hell mentioned in Genesis, again?

I suppose I'm also ignoring the existence of the asteroid belt. Maybe you should hammer me on that one as well.

Jesus had a failsafe in his dual nature? Let’s ignore the fact that you’re making it up, it has no basis in any known fact.

You don't really want people to ignore it, or else you would bring it up regularly.

I'll just remind the reader that Paul wants to admit intuition as a part of logic when it suits him ("universal" values), and exclude it when it doesn't suit him (predominance of theism).

Paul seems to argue almost habitually in bad faith (pun not intended in this case).

If it was true, why couldn’t God give each of us the same dual nature?

Why do you ask the same questions over and again even after they've been well and properly addressed?  The least you could do is acknowledge the answer you've been given with a response.

Jesus managed to maintain free will, so why couldn’t we?

Jesus' free will moral will was part of his human nature.  We do maintain that--even after we sin in our human nature.  Jesus would not have sinned in his divine nature--and at that point he would not have manifested free moral will.  Same goes for us.  We'd have the possibility of sinning according to our human nature and the impossibility of sinning according to our god nature.  End result:  Possible to manifest a failure of the human nature, but not possible to commit the sin because of the god nature. 

Why couldn’t God have done it that way if he wanted to?

He could have, I suppose.  Borgweh would multiply and fill the earth.

I still don't see much point in it, and I still don't see Paul offering to suggest a point to it, other than the implicit suggestion that it would result in fewer humans in hell.  That could be just as easily achieved by not creating anything, OTOH.

And why wouldn’t he want to?

Sorry, burden of proof's on you for that one.  Why would Borgweh want to multiply and fill the earth?

Just give us a dual nature according to you, and we’ll be really perfect, meaning we will never sin, and yet we would still maintain our free will.

Heh.  As if making everyone God is a little thing.

And it doesn't follow that we would have free will.  We would simply have the opportunity for one aspect of our dual nature to manifest its weakness, with the other half serving as a failsafe.

The situation ends up being parallel to the Adam/Jerry scenario.  Adam can decide to cut off Jerry's arm, but Adam cannot behold any ill effects resulting from his action if God cleans up the mess before it happens.

Reasonable people would admit that Adam can't cut off Jerry's arm in a meaningful way if there is no consequence to the action.

And every one of us could have his own independent consciousness, his own memory, his own specific preferences within the general pattern of preferences that are universally shared.

We would?

Not using Jesus as the model, we wouldn't.  Though I've already suggested the scenario where our conscious selves could ride around in bodies that are on autopilot.  Kind of like one of those old toys they used to make for toddlers in the car:  Junior gets his own horn and steering wheel, but it doesn't affect the path of the vehicle.

Isn't that like being in prison?

Junior turns the wheel, attempting to head for the 7-11 and a cola Slurpee--but Dad overrules and Junior has to sit through another boring Masonic meeting.  Junior hates the taste of beer, but Dad keeps drinking them anyway.

I'm sure Paul has the solution:  Just force Junior to like beer.  :)

And so on ...

There's no need for a race of Borgs. Or did you forget that you supposedly believe that Almighty God is in charge? That’s the perfect solution and it results in a perfect world, which is what God supposedly intended. Would you do less for your child, or for the world?

No, I wouldn't keep Junior at the mock-up dashboard for an entire lifetime.  Paul is thus far resolute in ignoring the problems with his suggestion.  God can do anything, after all (except make hell just).

In reality, you can’t accept that option because if you do, you can’t explain evil in the world.

I wouldn't have any live option for free will, either.  Paul should divest himself of any illusion to the contrary.

But when you do it your way, you admit that God’s intent has been thwarted, which rather reflects a lack of what you would call faith.

I take it Paul has tried to jump on my statement regarding God's moral will.  Yes, God's moral will is thwarted by sin, but God's sovereign will and God's goodness need not be thwarted by sin.  Paul was trying to argue against the latter.  Arguing against the former is pointless--and it would be silly to confuse the two arguments.

It doesn't follow that if God doesn't want people to sin that therefore God would not allow people to sin.  Thinking otherwise gives an effete handwave to the entirety of the free will theodicy.

But of course given the choice between diminishing God and giving up your pacifier, you’re perfectly content to diminish God. You don't care whether most of humanity burns in hell. You don't care if you paint God as an ignorant and ineffectual boob. But under no circumstances are you willing to give up your pacifier and your security blanket and your macabre lullaby (“Go to hell, go to hell, go to hell all my babies . . .” Imagine it to the tune of Brahms’ lullaby.), so you desperately hang onto your notion of this supposedly loving god who is perfectly content to see his children abandoned to suffer eternal torment in hell. And you’re just fine with that because you get to keep your security blanket and your pacifier.

... and finishing off with a several-sentence combination of ad hominem and appeal to outrage.

Blather, rinse, repeat.

LaClair has tapped his well of argument to the fullest.  There's no reason in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo

I once read that the "immaculate conception" wasn't that Mary became pregnant without the act of copulation, but rather she was actually "forgiven" for her copulation out of wedlock which led to the pregnancy.

Anyone else heard this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Bryan wrote:

Is it impossible in principle for scientists to build an android with language abilities built-in while preserving the entity's potential for free will?

If the answer is "no," then somebody is fallaciously begging the question.

If a scientist designed an android with desires and curiosity similar to humans, then it would be insane to blame the android for doing what the scientist new it would do in the first place, let alone punishing all further production models for something the original android did.

In Dingo Dave's world, perhaps he would defend the actions of the date rapist by claiming that the poor defendant is being punished merely for his desire for sexual satisfaction ...

How twisted is that statement?

There is a world of difference between date rape and the getting of wisdom.

Comparing date rape with the eating of a piece of fruit, is like comparing date rape with the act of sneaking into a library after closing time in order to quietly read a book.

You are one sick SOB Bryan.

That doesn't follow, either. Adam, for example, had the intellectual capacity, according to the text, to give the various animals their names. Would a cow have been able to do that?

It’s called hyperbole Bryan.

When my son was four, he had the intellectual capacity to give names to all his plush toys.

However, nobody would try to claim that he was intellectually or morally developed enough to be trusted not to take a cookie from the cookie jar just because I once told him not to do so.

Even my dog knows when he’s done something naughty. Anyone who has seen the guilty expression on their dog’s face when they have been caught doing something they know they shouldn’t have been doing, would have to agree that animals have a limited capacity for understanding that certain actions will provoke certain reactions in their human overlords.

Besides which, implicit in the genesis story is the idea that Adam and Eve were more like animals than adult humans. They wandered around naked, foraging, for goodness sake, and didn’t even come up with the idea of clothing themselves until they had partaken of the fruit.

Look at one of the first questions Yahweh asked them after the fruit-eating incident.

Who told you that you were naked?

The symbolism is clear.

So D-Dave goes from asserting that God had and maintained total control of all of A&E's actions all the way to asserting that God acted out of fear of losing control the beings he supposedly totally controls.

The Genesis story has similarities with the story of Prometheus stealing fire from heaven as a gift for mankind, in order that the human race could rise above their animal condition.

Except in the Genesis story it is Yahweh himself who brings the fire down, and then orders the humans not to use it.

Does "the world" mean the exact same thing as "the universe"?

If they didn't mean the same thing, then is it possible that Adam and Eve did introduced sin to the world while not introducing it to the universe?

To the ancients who wrote Genesis, the world was the universe. I don’t understand what you hope to achieve by splitting hairs that way.

Take a look at the link below, for a diagram of how the ancient Hebrews imagined the cosmos to be constructed. This is the paradigm under which the Genesis story was written.

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/g...ommoncosmos.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once read that the "immaculate conception" wasn't that Mary became pregnant without the act of copulation, but rather she was actually "forgiven" for her copulation out of wedlock which led to the pregnancy.

Anyone else heard this?

No, but I recently was told that Mary and Joseph are apparently believed to have been cousins (this was the answer when I asked someone about the unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus being directly descended from David because Joseph was not his biological father). Anyone else heard either of these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a scientist designed an android with desires and curiosity similar to humans, then it would be insane to blame the android for doing what the scientist new it would do in the first place, let alone punishing all further production models for something the original android did.

Why didn't you answer the question?

How twisted is that statement?

It's not twisted at all, AFAICT. It makes a perfect analogy to your argument. Have you no answer other than outrage?

There is a world of difference between date rape and the getting of wisdom.

Comparing date rape with the eating of a piece of fruit, is like comparing date rape with the act of sneaking into a library after closing time in order to quietly read a book.

You are one sick SOB Bryan.

Me? I'm not the one trading the whole of an analogy (with the key point of comparison based on motivations) for one part of the analogy. You're the one doing that, and it is sick in it's own fashion.

You haven't addressed any of my arguments thus far. Your skill places you in the same league as many of KOTW's anonymous guests.

It’s called hyperbole Bryan.

When my son was four, he had the intellectual capacity to give names to all his plush toys.

However, nobody would try to claim that he was intellectually or morally developed enough to be trusted not to take a cookie from the cookie jar just because I once told him not to do so.

Your son could not understand that you did not want him taking cookies from the jar at that age?

If he understood that he was not supposed to take the cookies, then he was morally aware.

So, did you have a point other than needlessly shoring up my argument?

Besides which, implicit in the genesis story is the idea that Adam and Eve were more like animals than adult humans. They wandered around naked, foraging, for goodness sake, and didn’t even come up with the idea of clothing themselves until they had partaken of the fruit.

Where does DingoDave get the idea that adult humans wouldn't forage? Nutty Australian!

If Adam followed instructions then he was tending the garden, not "wandering."

Reasonable people admit gardening as an activity fit for adult humans (especially in Britain!).

Look at one of the first questions Yahweh asked them after the fruit-eating incident.

Who told you that you were naked?

The symbolism is clear.

The symbolism of what is clear?

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

No doubt God was telling the first couple to engage in arithmetic when he charged them to multiply in Genesis 1. Or at least that's the way they teach it in Dave's part of Australia.

The Genesis story has similarities with the story of Prometheus stealing fire from heaven as a gift for mankind, in order that the human race could rise above their animal condition.

Both stories have a human being in them, for example. Oops--no, Prometheus was a god.

Except in the Genesis story it is Yahweh himself who brings the fire down, and then orders the humans not to use it.

And except DDave had to make up the animal conditions in Genesis in order to justify his comparison.

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

Does "the world" mean the exact same thing as "the universe"?

If they didn't mean the same thing, then is it possible that Adam and Eve did introduced sin to the world while not introducing it to the universe?

To the ancients who wrote Genesis, the world was the universe. I don’t understand what you hope to achieve by splitting hairs that way.

Try answering a question once in a while and maybe you'll find out.

Take a look at the link below, for a diagram of how the ancient Hebrews imagined the cosmos to be constructed. This is the paradigm under which the Genesis story was written.

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/g...ommoncosmos.htm

Did you bother reading it yourself? Did you notice that the argument is based on the author's (N. F. Gier) exegesis of the Bible combined with his assertion that his interpretations are correct because other ME cultures had a similar system?

You'd rather accept his conclusions than examine their basis, isn't that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but I recently was told that Mary and Joseph are apparently believed to have been cousins (this was the answer when I asked someone about the unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus being directly descended from David because Joseph was not his biological father). Anyone else heard either of these?

The immaculate conception was all about Mary. Since she was the "vessel" to bear the messiah (this was before people knew of the existence of human ova--before that they thought semen was actual seed and the womb was like a fertile garden)

she had to be pure. In order to make that happen she had to be conceived without sin. Apparenty, according to this theory, the act leading to conception, i.e., regular, natural heterosexual sex, was in itself sinful. God prevented original sin (Adam's disobedience) from staining her. The conception of Jesus by the holy spirit (the bird) planting a divine seed in her fertile garden without having to do the nasty. The Roman Catholic church goes even further by saying that she remained a virgin after the birth of JC and stayed a virgin for the rest of her life. Why she was condemned to be a virgin forever is a mystery. Jesus's brothers and sisters mentioned in the bible were, according to RC theology, either the offspring of Joseph by a previous marriage or the cousins of Jesus.

The geneaologies of Jesus in the bible are just too confusing to merit any real consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
No, but I recently was told that Mary and Joseph are apparently believed to have been cousins (this was the answer when I asked someone about the unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus being directly descended from David because Joseph was not his biological father). Anyone else heard either of these?

No, but I have heard that you and Paul are kissin cousins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Bryan wrote:

Why didn't you answer the question?

Because it was a stupid question.

In Dingo Dave's world, perhaps he would defend the actions of the date rapist by claiming that the poor defendant is being punished merely for his desire for sexual satisfaction ...It's not twisted at all, AFAICT. It makes a perfect analogy to your argument. Have you no answer other than outrage?

Claiming that date rape analogous to eating a piece of fruit, or the getting of wisdom is outrageous. If you can seriously claim that this is a good analogy, then you are morally bankrupt Bryan. You have given yourself over to ‘dark side of the force’ Anakin Skywalker.

Your son could not understand that you did not want him taking cookies from the jar at that age? If he understood that he was not supposed to take the cookies, then he was morally aware. So, did you have a point other than needlessly shoring up my argument?

Were Adam and eve morally aware prior to eating the fruit? If so, then they would have already possessed the knowledge of good and evil. Which the Bible says they didn’t. In which case the fruit-eating story becomes redundant, and sillier than it already is.

Where does DingoDave get the idea that adult humans wouldn't forage? Nutty Australian! If Adam followed instructions then he was tending the garden, not "wandering."

If the garden needed tending, then it was not perfect in the first place. Which gives the lie to the Christian doctrine of an originally perfect paradise, and makes Yahweh’s curse no more than rhetorical hot air and bluster.

I can't believe that we're having this conversation in the 21st century!

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." No doubt God was telling the first couple to engage in arithmetic when he charged them to multiply in Genesis 1. Or at least that's the way they teach it in Dave's part of Australia.

WTF? You’re losing it Bryan.

Besides which, I thought from what you previously wrote, that the first couple were supposed to hang out in the garden ‘tending’ it. Why would they want to migrate across the whole Earth ‘subduing’ it if the Garden of Eden was such a great place to hang out? This is just one more reason to view the whole Garden of Eden story as the cobbled together legend that it so obviously is. It’s not even internally consistent.

Both stories have a human being in them, for example. Oops--no, Prometheus was a god.

So what were Yahweh, and the serpent (Satan?) supposed to be if not gods? Chopped liver?

You have however given me pause to reconsider those character’s roles in the legend. Perhaps we would be better to describe the serpent as fulfilling the role of Prometheus in this particular myth. After all he was the one who induced A&E to liberate themselves from their animal servitude and ignorance, and was cursed and punished for doing so, as was Prometheus.

“He (Prometheus) deprived them of their knowledge of the future, and gave them hope instead (248, &c.). He further taught them the use of fire, made them acquainted with architecture, astronomy, mathematics, the art of writing, the treatment of domestic animals, navigation, medicine, the art of prophecy, working in metal, and all the other arts.” - http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

In other words, the very things, which separate us from the beasts, and make us distinctly human.

Concerning the ancient view of the cosmos:

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/g...ommoncosmos.htm

Did you bother reading it yourself? Did you notice that the argument is based on the author's (N. F. Gier) exegesis of the Bible combined with his assertion that his interpretations are correct because other ME cultures had a similar system?

You'd rather accept his conclusions than examine their basis, isn't that correct?

I have read it and examined it, along with quite a lot of other comparative anthropology concerning ancient contemporary middle eastern cultures, and his thesis makes one hell of a lot more sense than the crock of shit that you’re trying to foist upon us. Most ancient historians hold similar views to Gier’s, and rightly so.

It’s only the religious nutters who seriously dispute that the Hebrews didn’t conform to this common view of the cosmos, and they can only do this by denying (I believe dishonestly) the plain meaning of the Biblical texts which describe the ‘Heavens and the Earth’ in exactly these terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
No, but I recently was told that Mary and Joseph are apparently believed to have been cousins (this was the answer when I asked someone about the unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus being directly descended from David because Joseph was not his biological father). Anyone else heard either of these?

You're both idiots.

The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived by her parents without original sin. In this way Mary was born without original sin. It has nothing directly to do with how Mary conceived Jesus.

If you can't even get your fairy tales right, how are we suppose to take you seriously on other subjects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're both idiots. 

The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived by her parents without original sin.

Really?

"34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." --Luke 1:34-35 (emphasis added)

If you can't even get your fairy tales right, how are we suppose to take you seriously on other subjects?

It appears you should be asking yourself, not me, unless you can show me where in the Bible it says that Joseph impregnated Mary. Chapter and verse, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it was a stupid question.

Why didn't you explain why you thought it was a stupid question?

Claiming that date rape analogous to eating a piece of fruit, or the getting of wisdom is outrageous.

Yes, it is. About as outrageous as the straw man you just created. Again, the analogy regards the condemnation of motivation instead of the action used to attain the end.

Your failure to pick up on that, DDave, is indicative either of stupidity or dishonesty.

Were Adam and eve morally aware prior to eating the fruit? If so, then they would have already possessed the knowledge of good and evil. Which the Bible says they didn’t. In which case the fruit-eating story becomes redundant, and sillier than it already is.

Either that or you've misinterpreted what eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil meant.

What is moral awareness? Is it more than knowing that an action is wrong? Did God not instruct Adam that one of the trees in the garden was forbidden to him? Was Adam unable to understand that the fruit of that tree was forbidden to him until after he ate of the fruit?

I don't think there is any way you can reconcile your explanatory framework with the details of the story, DDave.

If the garden needed tending, then it was not perfect in the first place.

Non sequitur.

Perfection cannot be properly judged apart from purpose. What purpose has DDave surmised for the garden? Was its purpose to provide food without tending? If that's the case, then the garden was a failure. Perhaps the garden was intended to give Adam something to do so he wouldn't have to "wander" like an animal (to use DDave's term)? If so, the requirement for tending makes the garden more perfect.

Why don't you try pontificating on science instead, DDave?

Which gives the lie to the Christian doctrine of an originally perfect paradise, and makes Yahweh’s curse no more than rhetorical hot air and bluster.

I can't believe that we're having this conversation in the 21st century!

Building a non sequitur on a previous non sequitur isn't going to help you.

You’re losing it Bryan.

In what way, DDave? Do you deny that the instruction to multiply was given on the fifth day in the Genesis 1 account?

Besides which, I thought from what you previously wrote, that the first couple were supposed to hang out in the garden ‘tending’ it. Why would they want to migrate across the whole Earth ‘subduing’ it if the Garden of Eden was such a great place to hang out? This is just one more reason to view the whole Garden of Eden story as the cobbled together legend that it so obviously is. It’s not even internally consistent.

Why couldn't A&E and their descendants make the whole earth like the Garden of Eden? Oh, that's right--you have to make certain ridiculous assumptions in support of your ridiculous framework. Where your framework fails, it's the fault of the Genesis author for not offering a consistent account.

:)

Both stories have a human being in them, for example. Oops--no, Prometheus was a god.

So what were Yahweh, and the serpent (Satan?) supposed to be if not gods? Chopped liver?

So, if we call Yahweh and the serpent gods it somehow puts a human being into the Prometheus story?

What are you, DDave, if not an abject moron?

You have however given me pause to reconsider those character’s roles in the legend. Perhaps we would be better to describe the serpent as fulfilling the role of Prometheus in this particular myth. After all he was the one who induced A&E to liberate themselves from their animal servitude and ignorance, and was cursed and punished for doing so, as was Prometheus.

Some liberation. A&E become mortal, get kicked out of the garden of eden, and get curses put on them as well.

DDave's tale is yet another from the skeptical collection of "Except for all the differences, they're exactly alike!"

“He (Prometheus) deprived them of their knowledge of the future, and gave them hope instead (248, &c.). He further taught them the use of fire, made them acquainted with architecture, astronomy, mathematics, the art of writing, the treatment of domestic animals, navigation, medicine, the art of prophecy, working in metal, and all the other arts.” - http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

In other words, the very things, which separate us from the beasts, and make us distinctly human.

Who knew that the moral sense would included architecture? We can only bow before the wisdom of the dingish antipodian.

Concerning the ancient view of the cosmos:

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/g...ommoncosmos.htm

If you post a URL twice, does it double in veracity? And erase the criticisms of its content?

I have read it and examined it, along with quite a lot of other comparative anthropology concerning ancient contemporary middle eastern cultures, and his thesis makes one hell of a lot more sense than the crock of shit that you’re trying to foist upon us. Most ancient historians hold similar views to Gier’s, and rightly so.

You haven't offered any cogent criticism of my view, and you appear to be standing pat with the bald assertion that Gier is correct--apart from your phantom survey of "most ancient historians" as though conducting a poll leads us to the truth of the matter.

You're making the argument of a stupid person.

It’s only the religious nutters who seriously dispute that the Hebrews didn’t conform to this common view of the cosmos, and they can only do this by denying (I believe dishonestly) the plain meaning of the Biblical texts which describe the ‘Heavens and the Earth’ in exactly these terms.

Here we are again, with the skeptic declaring that the Bible can't even offer a consistent view, but also appealing to the "plain meaning" at the same time.

I would expect an intelligent person to pause before ascribing a "plain meaning" to an ancient text, unless he were an expert in the original languages.

Something tells me that DingoDave isn't that kind of expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're both idiots. 

The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived by her parents without original sin.  In this way Mary was born without original sin.  It has nothing directly to do with how Mary conceived Jesus.

If you can't even get your fairy tales right, how are we suppose to take you seriously on other subjects?

Excuse me for not being an expert on the bible, which is the greatest fairy tale of them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
You're both idiots. 

The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived by her parents without original sin.  In this way Mary was born without original sin.  It has nothing directly to do with how Mary conceived Jesus.

If you can't even get your fairy tales right, how are we suppose to take you seriously on other subjects?

Take Strife seriously ? I don't think anyone in Kearny takes Strife any way but a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Further to Adam 'Tending' the Garden of Eden

Genesis 2:15

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

Why would Adam have been expected to till the garden if it was originally created perfect? One of a Adam's punishments for eating the fruit, was that he would have to toil to get his food. It seems to me that he already was expected to have to toil and till, prior to eating the magic apple.

Genesis 3:17...

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,

and have eaten of the tree..

cursed is the ground because of you;

in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life...

In the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread

till you return to the ground..

What a silly hodgepodge of contradictory nonsense this story is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Guest is right, biut its not nice to call people idiots.

Immaculate Conception is the doctrine, redefined as dogma, that Mary was conceived without sin. She was conceived in an immaculate state.

It has nothing to do with the statement that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take Strife seriously ?  I don't think anyone in Kearny takes Strife any way but a joke.

Strife consistently strings together cogent arguments based on evidence. I don't see an inclination toward making things up on the fly or believing things just because Strife wants them to be true, which is pretty much all I see from you. Sometimes Strife goes into attack mode, but unlike yourself, stays grounded in evidence and reason.

So for me it isn't a matter of what I may think of Strife personally. What's relevant on this board is the quality of Strife's arguments, which stand so far above yours that I'm almost ashamed of myself even getting involved in this exchange.

I do think people take Strife seriously. Thinking people do.

They do not take you seriously. I'm quite serious about that. It's because of how you let your opinions run the show, instead of forming your opinions around evidence and reason. I don't know you, but I also get the sense from your respective writings that Strife is smarter than you are. You really should think about changing your KOTW moniker and starting over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...