BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
This line of thinking can be used to justify any concievable action, no matter how atrocious. If Hitler had this justification for the Holocaust he'd be an OK guy in your book.
No he wouldn't because he's not God. Only God has the right to give and take life. We don't decide when it should happen.
Read carefully. The statement implied God's approval.
Regardless, Hitler would have been just as "justified" with approval from the Pope or the Protestant Clergy since they are our "shepards" and they know "God's Will." Heck even he had faith in Jesus he'd be going to heaven anyway, since all of his sins would be absolved in your book.
Quote:
Yes, that of evidence and justice. It is only when one uses human life, in this reality, as a standard can any sort of objective justice be obtained.
Why do you say that?
That would be because objective standards require reference to this reality; and justice is generally refered to as a code which makes life in human soceity possible.
Quote:
When you accept "God" as an arbiter of justice and morality any action becomes justifiable, in that you've dismissed all objective standards of value and evidence.
I would say that God, being unchanging and perfectly moral, would be the objective standard.
Its not an objective standard, there is no proof that validates the existence of God. Some may claim that the Bible provides the proof, but there is no evidence to prove that true either. (Nor would it even be possible, in my opinion, since the Bible directly contradicts itself in places.)
Under this system any nut would be justified in any action if he claimed God's sanction; and since objective standands of evidence and justice would be dismissed, who would we be to say differently?
God his told us what is right and wrong in the Bible. If someone claims to be doing God's will, yet does something contradictory to it, then he's clearly lying. Just because somebody makes a claim doesn't mean it's true.
Unless you can use logic and evidence to validly prove that God exists and that the Bible is valid you have no grounds to dismiss any such claims. If you justify your beliefs by faith then any nut can claim God's sanction, through faith, for his actions.
Don't play semantic bullshit. I said you can't know with absolute certainty, not believe. You can believe something in spite of evidence to the contrary; absolute certainty requires omniscience. Thus the point remains that you do not know, with absolute certainty, that God will not ask you to do this.
God has told us certain things about his character, so I know that he will never say certain things. if you're talking about absolute certainty in the sense that requires omniscience, then why do you trust anything science tells you? You're the one playing semantics games here.
In Science relative certainly is perfectly acceptable since it is an intergral part of both its philosophical underpinnings and the theories that are its product.
In your case relative certaintity is completly unacceptable since your answer to Mike's question was that you know that God would not ask such a thing of you in this time of Grace. This means you would know with absolute 100% certainty that God would not ask such a thing of you, and that in turn requires omniscience. If you are only relativly certain then you COULD be wrong, God COULD ask such a thing of you.
Emotions are not forms of evidence.
Now who's playing semantics games? Would you prefer it if I said that 'Due to the evidence of the Bible, I believe that' instead of 'I feel that'?
The new wording is much more appropriate since it implies that you actually have a source for your opinion, rather then merely relying on your emotions as a guide. However, the Bible would have to be proven true before it could be accepted as evidence.
I'm sure God (if he exists) will go on with his plan regardless of what you feel on the matter. In fact for all you know those abortions could have been ordered directly by God. Think about it, a woman goes to an abortion clinic and is stopped by a Christian picket line, she justifies her actions to them by saying "God told me to get an abortion". Regardless of their feelings on the matter they would have no valid counter-arguement or means of justifiying otherwise.
Yes they would. People lie. People get things wrong. Just because people say 'God told me' doesn't mean he did.
Lies and errors are only determined to be such through the use of evidence and logic. Until I see proof that God exists and the Bible is valid then she has exactly the same justification for her beliefs that you do. Her faith.
The only course they could possibly take would be to deny that God did such a thing, and since they would have dismissed reason as inferior to faith in the first place, they would have no means of proving otherwise.
Rubbish. Reason is a part of faith and if a claim is contradictory to what the Bible says, then we can know it to be wrong.
The Bible says that the Earth was created aprx. 5000 yrs ago in 7 days. Science says otherwise. Based on what you just said we know Science to be wrong since its contradicts the Bible. In other words your stating that should the two conflict, faith is superior to reason. Your rebuttal just proved my point.
If the baby is truly innocent, or has a desire in its heart to follow God, it will go to a far better place and the death will have been good for it. If the baby has no such desire and is instead DESTINED for evil, then it is going where it would end up anyway
(Emphasis is mine)
Nice speech, too bad it condradicts the Biblically verifed theory of free will.
Err, no it doesn't
Destiny contradicts free will. The two are mutally exclusive.
That baby is nothing but innocent (other the Original Sin in your book- which is eliminated by babtism) until it actually commits a "Sin". Thus you will be depriving that INNOCENT child of life.
Infant baptism does nothing to get rid of sin. The Bible clearly says that sin is removed only by seeking forgiveness from God through Jesus. And besides, not everyone is going to have been baptised.
The fact that not everyone is babtized is irrelevant to the conversation... the baby is babtized- the rest of the World dosen't matter. According to Christianity Babtism does remove sin in that it is the accetance of forgivness of God through Jesus. That is why many early Christians (including Constantine the Great) waited until they were on or near their death beds to be babtized. I repeat that the baby is innocent.
The fact remains that you either have to obey God and kill the perfectly innocent infant, or know better then God and not kill the infant.
False dilemma. The infant could be guilty. And God knows best. Death is not the end. An innocent child would go to heaven; a better place. Spared the evils of this life.
The baby is innocent. God commands you to kill the baby. Would you kill it?
You can't use predestination as a cop out because free will directly contradicts the idea.
No it doesn't.
Free Will and predestination are mutally exclusive by defination. I dare you to try and prove otherwise.
Yes I can, and do. You are so arrogant, to assume that all those who have faith must be illogical and unreasonable.
Prove that God exists and the Bible is valid. Until you do such things you are, by the defination of the terms, illogical and unreasonable.
You look down your noses at us, sneering, claiming you are superior, discussing ways to wipe us out, calling God a psychopath, yet approving of a guy who resorts to violence when faced with insults.
I have never discussed ways of wiping out Christans or approved of someone who resorts to violence when faced with insults. You claim people shouldn't judge Christians by the actions of other Christans- then you do the same to atheists. Sounds like a double standard to me.
As for God- he executes and tortures without even giving justifications for his actions. Most people consider such actions to be indicative of mental instability at the very least.
You call us close minded and intolerant, yet close off any idea of faith and look for ways to repress our expression of ourselves
Being reasonable is the foremost sign of being open-minded, I'm perfectly willing to change my beliefs should they be proven wrong. Your faith in the absolute truth of your beliefs makes you closed-minded- you already know the truth and anything that does not meet that standard is heresey or lies.
As for your expressing yourself, I haven't seen myself or Mike (who have been the main opponents to yourself in the debate up to this point) propose anything else then equal treatment of Atheists and Theists when it comes to "expression". If your allowed to post the 10 Commandments in public places, then we should be allowed to post the atrocites from the Bible, or quote from Neitzche or whatever. [/i]
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
-H.L. Mencken
