Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WIKIPEDIA:
Socrates asks whether gods love the pious, because it is the pious, or the pious is the pious, because it is loved by the gods? In other words: do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it?

This can be adjusted to a christian God:
As Leibniz presents this version of the dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."

The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right): some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands.
This horn of the dilemma presents a significant challenge to the attributes Christians define for their concept of a God, indicating that their concept of a God does not sit on this horn:
Sovereignty: If there are moral standards independent of God's will, then "[t]here is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Moreover, God depends for his goodness on the extent to which he conforms to an independent moral standard. Thus, God is not absolutely independent."
Omnipotence: These moral standards would limit God's power: not even God could oppose them by commanding what is evil and thereby making it good. As Richard Swinburne puts the point, this horn "seems to place a restriction on God's power if he cannot make any action which he chooses obligatory... [and also] it seems to limit what God can command us to do. God, if he is to be God, cannot command us to do what, independently of his will, is wrong."
Morality without God: If there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. This conclusion was explicitly (and notoriously) drawn by early modern political theorist Hugo Grotius: "What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to him" On such a view, God is no longer a "law-giver" but at most a "law-transmitter" who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality.


The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is right because it is commanded by God) is sometimes known as divine command theory or voluntarism. Roughly, it is the view that there are no moral standards other than God's will: without God's commands, nothing would be right or wrong.

This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems:
No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: "if theological voluntarism is true, then God's commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary... [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another."And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective." An additional problem is that it is difficult to explain how true moral actions can exist, if one only acts out of fear for God, or in an attempt to be rewarded by him.

No reasons for God: This arbitrariness would also jeopardize God's status as a wise and rational being, one who always acts on good reasons only. As Leibniz writes: "Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act."

Anything goes: This arbitrariness would also mean that anything could become good, and anything could become bad, merely upon God's command. Thus if God commanded us "to gratuitously inflict pain on each other" or to engage in "cruelty for its own sake" or to hold an "annual sacrifice of randomly selected ten-year-olds in a particularly gruesome ritual that involves excruciating and prolonged suffering for its victims", then we would be morally obligated to do so. As 17th-century philosopher Ralph Cudworth put it: "nothing can be imagined so grossly wicked, or so foully unjust or dishonest, but if it were supposed to be commanded by this omnipotent Deity, must needs upon that hypothesis forthwith become holy, just, and righteous."

Moral contingency: If morality depends on the perfectly free will of God, morality would lose its necessity: "If nothing prevents God from loving things that are different from what God actually loves, then goodness can change from world to world or time to time. This is obviously objectionable to those who believe that claims about morality are, if true, necessarily true." In other words, no action has its moral status necessarily: any right action could have easily been wrong, if God had so decided, and an action which is right today could easily become wrong tomorrow, if God so decides. Indeed, some have argued that divine command theory is incompatible with ordinary conceptions of morality.

God's goodness: If all goodness is a matter of God's will, then what shall become of God's goodness? Thus William P. Alston writes, "since the standards of moral goodness are set by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands... that God practises what he preaches, whatever that might be", and Hutcheson deems such a view "an insignificant Tautology, amounting to no more than this, 'That God wills what he wills.'" Alternatively, as Leibniz puts it, divine command theorists "deprive God of the designation good: for what cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?" A related point is raised by C. S. Lewis: "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'" Or again Leibniz: "this opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil." That is, since divine command theory trivializes God's goodness, it is incapable of explaining the difference between God and an all-powerful demon.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Children are best raised by two parents of different genders. Even dogmatised adoption agencies understand and will insist on that for example, and is independent on any opinion on the sexuality of said parents.

Do you have evidence to support this claim, or are you arguing from "the spirit" again?

This amongst others. Its not hard to find.

http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html

 dogma wrote:

You're not actually addressing the Euthyphro dilemma here, in fact you're ignoring the very thing that actually makes it a dilemma; that being a claim to embody moral truth.

I'm ignoring the irrelevant. The 'dilemma' tries to define God in human terms. This is a non starter. It would be like trying to fathom human behaviour by looking at insects. Some parallels can be taken, but most would be way off the mark.

 dogma wrote:

If God embodies moral truth (again, in a narrow sense), then he isn't adopting anything, rather he is pronouncing moral truth by decree; meaning his rules are essentially arbitrary.

Sorry but I do think that is at its core a reductio ad absurdem argument, because when reduced to its core elements all human decisions are arbitrary, even the most well thought out judgements or decisions by the wisest people, because at some level a human has to decide.
However we cannot measure God by the same yardstick. Taken from the usual paradigm of the nature of God, with God being infinite has the authority and wisdom to make definitive decisions which coming from a human would be arbitrary, but coming from a God who is just patient and can see the issues from all angles is instead definitively correct. God is thus bound to come up with a single correct answer, in fact cannot come up with any other answer without contradicting or compromising what He essentially is. So to some extent God is bound to His answer.

In each case where God has made a ruling man is assured that due to the nature of God the ruling is defintively just, not arbitrarily. Were it arbitrary God could give different answers, wheras the Law can give only one.

God bends the Law to certain degrees without breaking it. A good example being the crucifixion, which works in loopholes to the Law of sin resulting in death. Could that be considered arbitrary? in a way yes as God made the decision to construct those plans and need not have done so. However being omniscient such plans as Gods salvation were worked in gradually right from the beginning resulting in strange occurances out of normal sequence. For example the Commander of the Army of the Lord that Joshua knelt before in worship, who is considered in all likelihood to be Jesus seen pre-incarnation. So if those types of decisions could be considered arbitrary in so much as they were options worked in, and that could be argued to a degree, then we have to consider whether a Plan B worked in from the beginning is actually arbitrary if its part of the original set up.

Really we don't know enough about God to answer those questions, but can know that trying to understand God by comparing Him to human thinking isn't really workable.

Orlanth wrote:
This amongst others. Its not hard to find.

http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html

And a whole body of research evidence shows that first and foremost children benefit most from a home containing two nurturing "caregivers" period ( with the gender combinations of those caregivers being largely irrelevant).

 Coolyo294 wrote:
This won't end well.
But anyways, I'm a Christian. I believe in God and go to church on a semi-regular basis, but I still believe in things like evolution and the big bang theory.

Was it Santorum claiming that having a mother at home and a father in prison is better for the child than 2 gay parents?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
3) Understand that the regulations against homosexual behaviour are not motivated by 'gay hate' and that determination of absolute morality is the rightful province of a just God.

This is achieved by understanding the spirit in which Gods laws are contained, a spirit of both judgement and mercy, with compassion at its core.
Anyone making application of what God says any other way is missing the point.

4) Understand that reproduction isn't the only end acheived by human sexuality.

It might help to read what Christianity thinks on this issue then, rather than desiring to assume that a negative opinion has special merit. Here let me help:

First, that sentence didn't make much sense. How is acknowledging that sexuality plays a vital societal and psychological role beyond reproduction a negative opinion? Second, you won't help me by exegesis. You don't help people when using sophistry. You especially don't help people when you use sophism by authority based on a book containing affirmations that have never been factually based.

1 Corinthians 7: 1-6
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Petition of principle But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. Petition of principle The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.Petition of principle The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. Petition of principleIn the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Petition of principle Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Petition of principleThen come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Petition of principle, sophism through fear I say this as a concession, not as a command. Lie, every sentences used the imperative mode I wish that all of you were as I am. Claim to authority But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Wow, a whole lot of wisdom based in observation of the world. To think that people have been convinced with poor pieces of gakful affirmations such as these, throughout history, really makes me sad about the state of the intelligence of my fellow men.

Orlanth wrote:
This amongst others. Its not hard to find.

http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html

That doesn't offer any comparative statistical data based on the results of actual instances of parenting (or directly cite any data from the listed sources), its a collections of hypotheses drawn from the qualitative observation and interpretation of what they claim is in support of their position. Which is to say, uninteresting drivel.

Its also a webpage published by a group which is openly socially conservative, and explicitly anti-homosexual.

Note especially:

Wikipedia wrote:The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples

Sourced from this little gem. And corroborated here.

Orlanth wrote:
I'm ignoring the irrelevant. The 'dilemma' tries to define God in human terms. This is a non starter. It would be like trying to fathom human behaviour by looking at insects. Some parallels can be taken, but most would be way off the mark.

If God can't be defined in human terms, then why are we talking about God at all? Or, more importantly, what makes any supposed commandment He might make anything other than arbitrary? After all, there is no reason behind it, because reason is a human concept and so applying it to God is, per your words, inappropriate.

Orlanth wrote:
Sorry but I do think that is at its core a reductio ad absurdem argument, because when reduced to its core elements all human decisions are arbitrary, even the most well thought out judgements or decisions by the wisest people, because at some level a human has to decide.

Its good that you don't think that it was an RAA argument, because it wasn't. It was an explicit statement of what is logically necessary for God to be capable of adopting anything if he is omniscient and eternal. An RAA might wellfollow from that necessity, but that's different.

Also, no, humans don't have to decide, not about everything. Some things, for example "Am I going to rise, or remain seated?", yes, but not all things. That's the point of ternary logic.

Orlanth wrote:
God is thus bound to come up with a single correct answer, in fact cannot come up with any other answer without contradicting or compromising what He essentially is. So to some extent God is bound to His answer.

Which, you'll note, essentially means that God is unnecessary. Another problem that arises from Euthyphro.

Orlanth wrote:
In each case where God has made a ruling man is assured that due to the nature of God the ruling is defintively just, not arbitrarily. Were it arbitrary God could give different answers, wheras the Law can give only one.

There is no means by which to distinguish what you describe from an arbitrary answer. If an answer is given, then that is the answer that is given, once its given it cannot be another answer. This answer could be arbitrary, or the only possible answer that God could have given, but you have no way of discerning between the two. This is why the second horn of Euthyphro is so difficult, it gets at the manner in which people assume God is just, because God is just.


PS: No quote images because they don't seem to be working quite right yet.

Orlanth, when you truly understand why you dismiss every other religion on earth, you'll understand why you should dismiss Christianity.

Then, you'll be really embarrassed.

On an unrelated note, has the off-topic forum always been like this or did I just discover it at a prime time.

Right Oranith, I'm going to ask you a simple question.

1) Are morals good because they re what god desires?
2) does god desire morals because they are good?

PS: look at my last post which you so kindly ignored.
PPS: Kaldor, can't really tell if you're being ad hominem there... ah well...
PPPS: @xole - occasionally a good thread crops up I think the mods should create a separate debate forum, like most forums have, that way we can do this more often. Would be fun. DO YOU HEAR ModS? DEBATE SECTION! PLEEEEEEASE?

 xole wrote:
On an unrelated note, has the off-topic forum always been like this or did I just discover it at a prime time.

From what I gather this is meek.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 xole wrote:
On an unrelated note, has the off-topic forum always been like this or did I just discover it at a prime time.

From what I gather this is meek.

Then I am sad, or vaguely excited. Not sure which. I would add more to the debate at hand but I'm pretty sure somewhere in one of those walls of texts is my opinion so all I could be is a tally.

Why does morality matter again?

 walker90234 wrote:

PPPS: @xole - occasionally a good thread crops up I think the mods should create a separate debate forum, like most forums have, that way we can do this more often. Would be fun. DO YOU HEAR ModS? DEBATE SECTION! PLEEEEEEASE?

In this delicious theoretical sub-forum...wouldn't we need to stay on topic?

 Kaldor wrote:
Orlanth, when you truly understand why you dismiss every other religion on earth, you'll understand why you should dismiss Christianity.

Then, you'll be really embarrassed.

No, that isn't the point.

The point is recognizing a deficiency in an approach to argument.

There are plenty of good ways to argue from a Christian perspective that do not turn on generic appeals to God.

Purebred Anglican here. But I'm not much on the 'Jesus' thing, I believe in him, but by what the Book of Mary and the book of Judas in that Jesus wasn't so perfect. I follow mainly the Old Testament and the Book of Revelations.
Not much of a Gospel or Book of St Paul guy, or a All Virgin Mary and Ever-Loving God guy. As stated, I'm more of a Judgemental God and a calma cycle man...

 xole wrote:
On an unrelated note, has the off-topic forum always been like this or did I just discover it at a prime time.

 walker90234 wrote:

PPPS: @xole - occasionally a good thread crops up I think the mods should create a separate debate forum, like most forums have, that way we can do this more often. Would be fun. DO YOU HEAR ModS? DEBATE SECTION! PLEEEEEEASE?

The reason this thread is doing so well is that the majority of posters are doing a lot of self-policing. This is the first thread on this subject in a long time that I remember staying this civil with more people asking questions and answering them instead of attacking each other. We could have more threads in which we debate if we did so in a civil matter. A dedicated "debate sub-forum" wouldn't help because threads would still be shut down for Rule 1 violations if they follow the usual OT pattern of debate.

If we want more debate threads we just have to keep on debating and talking like adults. That is the reason this thread has been doing so well.

 Orlanth wrote:

walker90234 wrote:If you accept that There's no reason for following them. There is no more reason behind god saying homosexuality is wrong than there is reason behind me fancying a chicken sandwich for lunch,

There is more than a little difference, perhaps even an infinite difference between a human casual whim and the timeless reasoning of an infinite God.

Let us take an example. Take a baby born in Washington, as the baby was born in the US it is eligible to be President. So why not take the baby to the White House with a rattle and write policies on bits of paper where the rattle lands the policy is implemented. Such a child has no less right to be president than anyone else right?
This breaks down immediately when you consider the differences in level of authority. The President has the authority to make decisions at this level, the baby does not. Yet the President to baby analogy is much closer than the balance between the chicken sandwich liker and God.

If God does not like homosexuals he shouldn't have made them in the first place. It's like someone going "I really hate marmite and cheese sandwiches, but I'm going to make and eat them anyway because I like being angry!".

Just because someone is in power does not mean they should be in power. The "God makes morality" argument is stupid. Making people suffer is immoral. God supposedly has infinite power. Therefore he also has infinite responsibility. So all human suffering is his fault, ergo, God is a wankus.

And...there is a great example of why we can't have nice things...

 Kaldor wrote:
Orlanth, when you truly understand why you dismiss every other religion on earth, you'll understand why you should dismiss Christianity.

Then, you'll be really embarrassed.

Heard this one before, though we can work with your paraphrase. Every choice is in seperation. So its a case of religious preference: choose one.

The ideal of rejecting other relgious preferences is not limited to me, or Christians in general. Atheists also go with religious preference: choose one also. The number of God left over is the number of Gods iyou choose to accept. So for atheists it may be none, monotheists one, for Hindus quite a few.

The second half of the comment about how that justifies dismissing mine/ours/theirs. Well in which case your theology is entirely reactive rather than principled. You believe this, so therefore I will believe against it. Why not try something positive.
It also highlights the attitude that you prefer to think that making a religious preference is in a way meaning distain towards all others. 'Dismissing' other options after going through with 'relgious preference: choose one' need not be done with any amount of hatred or bile. One can choose chocolate without having to hate vanilla. The comment both in its original context and as you paraphrased here assumes hatred on the behalf of the worshiper or at least discrimination. My only reply to that is speak for yourself, other may show more maturity.

I have no reason to be embarrassed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:


Hahahahahahaha you're insane. If God does not like homosexuals he shouldn't have made them in the first place. It's like someone going "I really hate marmite and cheese sandwiches, but I'm going to make and eat them anyway because I like being angry!".

God made man, man made choices.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Just because someone is in power does not mean they should be in power. The "God makes morality" argument is stupid. Making people suffer is immoral. God supposedly has infinite power. Therefore he also has infinite responsibility. So all human suffering is his fault, ergo, God is a wankus.

God doesn't make us suffer, nor does He want to. However to intervene would be to rob us of our freedom. However God does take responsibility, which is why ways out of the worlds problems have been offered to us. It is not His fault if we reject them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


First, that sentence didn't make much sense. How is acknowledging that sexuality plays a vital societal and psychological role beyond reproduction a negative opinion? Second, you won't help me by exegesis. You don't help people when using sophistry. You especially don't help people when you use sophism by authority based on a book containing affirmations that have never been factually based.

Well, if you are going to ask about religious arguments then it helps to look at them in the context applied. Even Dogma has done that, and he is normally more than willing to take a piece of me however he can. An argument based on the Biblical account has internal consistency when talking about Christian values whether or not you believe in Christianity, or follow the teachings of the Bible.
If you are just going to dismiss the Bible wholecloth then you might as well just dismiss the thread and move on elsewhere.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Wow, a whole lot of wisdom based in observation of the world. To think that people have been convinced with poor pieces of gakful affirmations such as these, throughout history, really makes me sad about the state of the intelligence of my fellow men.

Thats rather conceited frankly. Much greater men than you and I have found a lot of value in the Scriptures. Reading Scripture is not a sign of lack of intelligence, what is done with it maybe, but that is a seperate issue. One cannot judge a faith on the merits of those who misrepresent it.
The Bible has enough wisdom in it to instruct any man, whether they follow the God of the Bible or not. If you want to wave it off as gak, then you aren't showing your intellect, quite the opposite actually.

 dogma wrote:

That doesn't offer any comparative statistical data based on the results of actual instances of parenting (or directly cite any data from the listed sources), its a collections of hypotheses drawn from the qualitative observation and interpretation of what they claim is in support of their position. Which is to say, uninteresting drivel.

As its a hot topic it is not surprising its findings are attacked. This goes both ways.

Its a difficult issue to provide data on, most is provided by observation of parents

 dogma wrote:

If God can't be defined in human terms, then why are we talking about God at all?

Fair question. We cannot completely define God, we would need to be able to observe infinity to do so, can have however have a limited understanding.

 dogma wrote:

Or, more importantly, what makes any supposed commandment He might make anything other than arbitrary? After all, there is no reason behind it, because reason is a human concept and so applying it to God is, per your words, inappropriate.

Wether a decision is arbitrary or not is a definition baed on human understanding and is a human process. We make arbitrary decisions because we are finite and have imperfect understanding. We can make non-arbitrary judgements and statements only rarely. Pure mathematics mostly and precious little of that. We can say definitively for example that 1+1 = 2, we cannot make a definitive comment on many other things as they remain unproven.
However with omniscience comes accuracy in decision making to the point that I question if it is possible for God to be arbitrary.

 dogma wrote:

Its good that you don't think that it was an RAA argument, because it wasn't. It was an explicit statement of what is logically necessary for God to be capable of adopting anything if he is omniscient and eternal. An RAA might wellfollow from that necessity, but that's different.

I wasnt quite sure, but it looked similar. The thing is an RAA in a the context of human questioning can lead to an alternate answer of 'God'. And example is to ask 'what came before?' as a chain question applying the same question to each answer. 'God' is an adequate if not scientifically satisfying answer.

 dogma wrote:

Also, no, humans don't have to decide, not about everything. Some things, for example "Am I going to rise, or remain seated?", yes, but not all things. That's the point of ternary logic.

Good catch, but that doesn't remove from the arbitrary nature of man. Silence is oftimes an answer of itself.

 dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
God is thus bound to come up with a single correct answer, in fact cannot come up with any other answer without contradicting or compromising what He essentially is. So to some extent God is bound to His answer.

Which, you'll note, essentially means that God is unnecessary. Another problem that arises from Euthyphro.

Or you could say that God is symptomic of the universe, or alternately the consciousness of the universe. This will fit with many of the Eastern religions directly as well as Judaic religions because God is 'everywhere' and embodies all things.

 dogma wrote:

There is no means by which to distinguish what you describe from an arbitrary answer. If an answer is given, then that is the answer that is given, once its given it cannot be another answer. This answer could be arbitrary, or the only possible answer that God could have given, but you have no way of discerning between the two.

Directly no, but this is where Gods consistency comes through. We know the answer is not arbitrary because we know that God is unchanging in his attributes which are (counting the relveant ones) omniscient and truly just. Therefore by following the extremes any declaration by God will fit this pattern and be therefore definitive and true. A more difficult concept is how Jesus claims to directly embody Truth, is Truth a consequence or an independent attribute of the divine of itself.

 dogma wrote:

This is why the second horn of Euthyphro is so difficult, it gets at the manner in which people assume God is just, because God is just.

I would like to look at this more, the answers seem easy enough and there are far better advocates than I around to answer them. For the dilemma to have horns there must be something that hasn't come across properly in this thread.

Can God unravel every paradox? If God encounters a paradox by which more than one answer is correct and simultaneously wrong does (?must?) God remain silent?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Orlanth, when you truly understand why you dismiss every other religion on earth, you'll understand why you should dismiss Christianity.

Then, you'll be really embarrassed.

Heard this one before, though we can work with your paraphrase. Every choice is in seperation. So its a case of religious preference: choose one.

The ideal of rejecting other relgious preferences is not limited to me, or Christians in general. Atheists also go with religious preference: choose one also. The number of God left over is the number of Gods iyou choose to accept. So for atheists it may be none, monotheists one, for Hindus quite a few.

The second half of the comment about how that justifies dismissing mine/ours/theirs. Well in which case your theology is entirely reactive rather than principled. You believe this, so therefore I will believe against it. Why not try something positive.
It also highlights the attitude that you prefer to think that making a religious preference is in a way meaning distain towards all others. 'Dismissing' other options after going through with 'relgious preference: choose one' need not be done with any amount of hatred or bile. One can choose chocolate without having to hate vanilla. The comment both in its original context and as you paraphrased here assumes hatred on the behalf of the worshiper or at least discrimination. My only reply to that is speak for yourself, other may show more maturity.

I have no reason to be embarrassed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:


Hahahahahahaha you're insane. If God does not like homosexuals he shouldn't have made them in the first place. It's like someone going "I really hate marmite and cheese sandwiches, but I'm going to make and eat them anyway because I like being angry!".

God made man, man made choices.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Just because someone is in power does not mean they should be in power. The "God makes morality" argument is stupid. Making people suffer is immoral. God supposedly has infinite power. Therefore he also has infinite responsibility. So all human suffering is his fault, ergo, God is a wankus.

God doesn't make us suffer, nor does He want to. However to intervene would be to rob us of our freedom. However God does take responsibility, which is why ways out of the worlds problems have been offered to us. It is not His fault if we reject them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


First, that sentence didn't make much sense. How is acknowledging that sexuality plays a vital societal and psychological role beyond reproduction a negative opinion? Second, you won't help me by exegesis. You don't help people when using sophistry. You especially don't help people when you use sophism by authority based on a book containing affirmations that have never been factually based.

Well, if you are going to ask about religious arguments then it helps to look at them in the context applied. Even Dogma has done that, and he is normally more than willing to take a piece of me however he can. An argument based on the Biblical account has internal consistency when talking about Christian values whether or not you believe in Christianity, or follow the teachings of the Bible.
If you are just going to dismiss the Bible wholecloth then you might as well just dismiss the thread and move on elsewhere.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Wow, a whole lot of wisdom based in observation of the world. To think that people have been convinced with poor pieces of gakful affirmations such as these, throughout history, really makes me sad about the state of the intelligence of my fellow men.

Thats rather conceited frankly. Much greater men than you and I have found a lot of value in the Scriptures. Reading Scripture is not a sign of lack of intelligence, what is done with it maybe, but that is a seperate issue. One cannot judge a faith on the merits of those who misrepresent it.
The Bible has enough wisdom in it to instruct any man, whether they follow the God of the Bible or not. If you want to wave it off as gak, then you aren't showing your intellect, quite the opposite actually.

Except most gay people aren't gay "by choice" it is just a fundamental part of who they are. So "mankind's choice" has feth all to do with it. If God hates people for what they are, he is a pathetic excuse for the basis of morality.

If intervening and robbing us of our supposed "freedom" would prevent suffering, he should go ahead. And yes, God DOES cause human suffering. If he is as powerful as he claims to be, then we can only assume that the plagues and natural disasters that occur are either his willing or his apathy in preventing them.

And what "ways out" has he offered? He has not appeared to us once (probably on account of not existing). If he is really so wise and benevolent then he should appear in person (and not just through one crazy old man's dreams) and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. Sorry abouf not telling you earlier.".

God hates no one, as it is a human emotion. The only emotion that is ever prescribed to god is love.

As for why doesn't god stop all the bad things, that would defeat the entire point of Abrahamic religions. If you have no free choice or are presented with only good in the world then there is no meaning behind your faith and love of god. If you live in a world were there is no bad that is anything actually good, can you have a good without the bad in the world

 youbedead wrote:
God hates no one, as it is a human emotion. The only emotion that is ever prescribed to god is love.

As for why doesn't god stop all the bad things, that would defeat the entire point of Abrahamic religions. If you have no free choice or are presented with only good in the world then there is no meaning behind your faith and love of god. If you live in a world were there is no bad that is anything actually good, can you have a good without the bad in the world

lol what?

what about the story where god gives out 3 loans to 3 people, and he gets angry at the 3rd person because he didn't get paid back with interest

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Except most gay people aren't gay "by choice" it is just a fundamental part of who they are. So "mankind's choice" has feth all to do with it.

Percentages of homosexuals in society varies, it is not static, currently it's growing. Homosexuality can also be a learned response, ancient Sparta is a good example of that, were homosexuality was mandatory and that policy was effective.
Furthermore there are societal triggers that commonly result in people growing up to be homosexual and even specific types of homosexual.
Both heterosexuals and homosexuals form into common distinct patterns of behaviour and mannerism, not all these patterns are positive, and from mannerisms one can guess with a strong degree of accuracy how individuals relationships were with their own mothers.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

If God hates people for what they are, he is a pathetic excuse for the basis of morality.

Where do you get the excuse to assume that God hates people?

 Squigsquasher wrote:

If intervening and robbing us of our supposed "freedom" would prevent suffering, he should go ahead.

Ok. You would want to bring forward judgement day then? As God is infinite a societal fix would be an all or nothing event.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

And yes, God DOES cause human suffering. If he is as powerful as he claims to be, then we can only assume that the plagues and natural disasters that occur are either his willing or his apathy in preventing them.

The Biblical account confirms that some disasters were intentional as localised punishments. I have enough confidence in God to believe that they were both reluctant and delayed, this is also confirmed in scripture.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

And what "ways out" has he offered? He has not appeared to us once (probably on account of not existing).

Cannot disagree with this any more than I already do. So God doesnt exist and you hate Him? That isn't consistent but quite commonplace.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

If he is really so wise and benevolent then he should appear in person (and not just through one crazy old man's dreams) and say "Oh by the way, I do exist after all. Sorry abouf not telling you earlier.".

Thats also Judgement Day, and God has already promised to do just that, all except the 'sorry about not elling you earlier'. Because He did that too.
Its strange how people talk about God revealing Himself as a prerequisite when they may not enjoy the process if/when God does exactly that. I'm ready, how about you?

sirlynchmob wrote:

what about the story where god gives out 3 loans to 3 people, and he gets angry at the 3rd person because he didn't get paid back with interest

That's a parable, notably the Parable of the Talents. God isn't going to damn me for not having extra oil after nightfall, and taken literally it would be a poor example as a righteous person would share their lanterns wirth those who had none. As with the parable of the talents the parable of the bridesmaids refers to an untransferable spiritual process.

In the case of the parable of the talents, it refers to natural gifts and wasting ones life. Even then a parable cannot be taken literally as the consequences of failure in the parable (being cast into Hell) is contrary to damnation which is determined on separate characteristics than personal achievement.

Parables teach us wisdom, which is different from knowledge. It's far more common a methodology in eastern religions and is handled the same way, for example 'Beware the dragon in the open field' means 'don't be overconfident', it doesn't mean 'watch out for dragons, or you will get eaten'.

Orlanth wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
what about the story where god gives out 3 loans to 3 people, and he gets angry at the 3rd person because he didn't get paid back with interest

That's a parable, notably the Parable of the Talents. God isn't going to damn me for not having extra oil after nightfall, and taken literally it would be a poor example as a righteous person would share their lanterns wirth those who had none. As with the parable of the talents the parable of the bridesmaids refers to an untransferable spiritual process.

In the case of the parable of the talents, it refers to natural gifts and wasting ones life. Even then a parable cannot be taken literally as the consequences of failure in the parable (being cast into Hell) is contrary to damnation which is determined on separate characteristics than personal achievement.

Parables teach us wisdom, which is different from knowledge. It's far more common a methodology in eastern religions and is handled the same way, for example 'Beware the dragon in the open field' means 'don't be overconfident', it doesn't mean 'watch out for dragons, or you will get eaten'.

I was referring to matthew 25, where god gives out 3 talents (sums of money) to 3 people and to the one who didn't pay him back with interest:
"But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. "
god says: "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. " or where my interest B*#%$#?
"Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents. "
"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Gods quite the republican, take from the poor and give to the rich.
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

He sounds a lot like a mobster really.

 Orlanth wrote:
[
Its strange how people talk about God revealing Himself as a prerequisite when they may not enjoy the process if/when God does exactly that. I'm ready, how about you?

Will the rest of his family (the Akkadic and Sumerian pantheon) be showing up too? If so, I should be alright. Me and Asherah are like that *crosses fingers* these days.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
what about the story where god gives out 3 loans to 3 people, and he gets angry at the 3rd person because he didn't get paid back with interest

That's a parable, notably the Parable of the Talents. God isn't going to damn me for not having extra oil after nightfall, and taken literally it would be a poor example as a righteous person would share their lanterns wirth those who had none. As with the parable of the talents the parable of the bridesmaids refers to an untransferable spiritual process.

In the case of the parable of the talents, it refers to natural gifts and wasting ones life. Even then a parable cannot be taken literally as the consequences of failure in the parable (being cast into Hell) is contrary to damnation which is determined on separate characteristics than personal achievement.

Parables teach us wisdom, which is different from knowledge. It's far more common a methodology in eastern religions and is handled the same way, for example 'Beware the dragon in the open field' means 'don't be overconfident', it doesn't mean 'watch out for dragons, or you will get eaten'.

I was referring to matthew 25, where god gives out 3 talents (sums of money) to 3 people and to the one who didn't pay him back with interest:
"But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. "
god says: "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. " or where my interest B*#%$#?
"Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents. "
"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Gods quite the republican, take from the poor and give to the rich.
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

He sounds a lot like a mobster really.

Except the parable isn't really about getting richer at all. It is a lesson about what you do with the talents and gifts that God has given us to you to grow His Kingdom and use our talents for evangelism and not about how to make mobster god richer. That is the important aspect of Matthew 25:26:

26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.

Our talent (or bags of gold according to some translations) are our gifts that we have because of our relationship with God. We use those talents to evangelize and share the Gospel. The person with many gifts shared the Gospel and more people received salvation. The person with few gifts did the same and grew the Kingdom of God. The person with only one talent did not use it. Even though he knew God and received the gift from him he buried it out of fear instead of sharing the Gospel. That is why the passage talks about gathering where He scattered no seed. The disciples knew Jesus, they walked with Him and they spoke with Him. The responsibility to share the Gospel where Jesus did not sow himself lies with the disciples and now lies with Christians. By burying his talents instead of using it to spread the Gospel the servant did nothing to further the Kingdom of God. That is why the master was angry with him. Each talent or bag stands for somebody saved and using their talents in return. By not growing his talents the slave did nothing to grow his talents.

That is the primary lesson of the parable. Not that God is a greedy mobster.

 d-usa wrote:

Our talent (or bags of gold according to some translations) are our gifts that we have because of our relationship with God. We use those talents to evangelize and share the Gospel. The person with many gifts shared the Gospel and more people received salvation. The person with few gifts did the same and grew the Kingdom of God. The person with only one talent did not use it. Even though he knew God and received the gift from him he buried it out of fear instead of sharing the Gospel. That is why the passage talks about gathering where He scattered no seed. The disciples knew Jesus, they walked with Him and they spoke with Him. The responsibility to share the Gospel where Jesus did not sow himself lies with the disciples and now lies with Christians. By burying his talents instead of using it to spread the Gospel the servant did nothing to further the Kingdom of God. That is why the master was angry with him. Each talent or bag stands for somebody saved and using their talents in return. By not growing his talents the slave did nothing to grow his talents.

That is the primary lesson of the parable. Not that God is a greedy mobster.

But back when it that was written a talent was:
3. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.

context and all that. Also the part where if he wasn't going to use his money he should at least put it in the bank. How can you spread a gospel by putting it in a bank to earn interest?

Or maybe "Informal members of the opposite sex collectively,"
maybe it was about, if you are given one to five wives, you should go and get twice as many wives. or probably just concubines back then.

That's the problem with parables, they don't really tell you anything, you just assume a meaning behind it that works for you. And if the bible is nothing more than a collection of parables and metaphors, then maybe god is just a metaphor or a parable as well right?

So you think Jesus was really just rambling on about mustard seeds during parts of His ministry?

 d-usa wrote:
So you think Jesus was really just rambling on about mustard seeds during parts of His ministry?

I don't think jesus existed at all, he was just a metaphor.

So you are not criticizing the Bible for what is says then, just what you think it says. If everything is just a metaphor, can you really blame a book for the way that you interpret it?