WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[jakswan]

No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.

You claim there exists an objective moral value; the action 'torturing a child to death just for fun', no evidence to support that, its a position you assert, we tried to get you to come up with a method to establish this in another thread (which ran for a year) and you failed to come up with anything.

Lets hypothetically assume that this OMV exists... this OMV creates a moral obligation on every moral agent to stop this action taking place.

So we than ask why doesn't a good omni god intervene and you claim your god wouldn't allow a child to be tortured to death just for fun.

Now I see what rabbit holes are coming up you will claim 'just for fun' is the motive for the torturer.

So what you are really saying is its wrong for the torturer to allow himself to TACTDJFF but its morally good that your god allows it to happen because gods motive is a good one. However you have previously agreed:-

If morals change according to the moral agent morality is subjective / not objective.
If morals change according to circumstance then the morality is relative / not absolute.

So in all this time using TACTDJFF as an example of objective is categorically wrong because the 'just for fun' part is subjective.

[floo]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

[Owlswing]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.

All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.

The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.

Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.

[floo]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.

All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.

The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.

Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.

It is definitely abhorrent to make excuses for the deity!

[BeRational]

The thing is, if the workings of God are so mysterious and we cannot understand them, how can anyone say that God is good?

Surely they would have to understand God to come to that conclusion, unless they are  just guessing and using confirmations bias.

If they do not understand God then they can not know he is good.

[Alien]

wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?

I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.

Wiggy isn't, AFAIK. He doesn't like laziness of mind and sloppy thinking. You haven't seen the posts you're referring to not because you missed them but because they weren't written.

Of course, you could always have used the 'search' function.

Congratulations. I also missed you being appointed his spokesperson.

[Alien]

So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?

It would make it easier to discuss.

You're the one who is being difficult. If you run with the hypothetical it will make it easier.

Only if you can actually define what you mean. How morally perfect is "as morally perfect as possible"? Give some examples rather than just make vague statements.

As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".

You've asserted neither is possible even when I included in the statements that it's within the confines of what is possible. A or B, Alan?

Example needed to show that it is possible in the first place.

I'm not bothered with this anymore. I think it's redundant.

Suits me.

[Alien]

And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.

Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.

And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.

Why?

[Alien]

...

So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.

No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.

I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".

I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.

[Alien]

When the argument about the "witches" operating as the Devil's servants on Earth was in full spate during the Burning Times it was stated, by the Christian Church, that the Devil was only able to operate in the world by the permission of the Christian god.

Thus all the evil in the world only exists by permission of the Christian god - ergo - the Christian god IS evil considering the suffering he allows in this world and no amount of biblical quotes and verbal gymnastics is going to change that.

Take this to its logical conclusion and the IS exists and operates by the permission of the Christian god - according to some on here - for the greater good!

Greater good - CRAP - considering the number of Christians who have died at the hands of the IS!

Is that meant to be a logical argument against God being good? You seem to write it as if it is something new you have brought to the discussion. It has already been said that, yes, God allows some evil in order that a greater good will occur.

[Andy]

And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.

Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.

And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.

Why?

See #102.

[Andy]

...

So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.

No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.

I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".

I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.

If it's not necessary then we can drop it. That seems clear enough.

[Alien]

No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.

You claim there exists an objective moral value; the action 'torturing a child to death just for fun', no evidence to support that, its a position you assert, we tried to get you to come up with a method to establish this in another thread (which ran for a year) and you failed to come up with anything.

That is a misrepresentation of my position. Since you are a nice chap, perhaps it is because you have forgotten.
I have said on a number of occasions that there are various ways of working out what is morally right or wrong, though some situations are very difficult indeed. Stuff like the overall wellbeing of humans might be one way of helping determine it. As I have also said on a number of occasions I have said I am probably happy to go with whatever method you use to work out whether something is morally right or wrong (since most methods come up with the same result most of the time). The "objective" bit of objective morality as used in the particular argument for God's existence is that something is objectively morally wrong independent of how many people think it so. TATCTJFF was chosen as it is clear, whatever method of determining the morality of action, that this is morally wrong and that even if all the world thought it morally OK, it would still be morally wrong.

Lets hypothetically assume that this OMV exists... this OMV creates a moral obligation on every moral agent to stop this action taking place.

Why? That does not necessarily follow. If you think it does, please demonstrate why. If OM (objective morality) exists, e.g. that it is morally wrong for a person (in fact, anyone) to torture a child to death just for fun. It does not say anything about us having to stop it. We might not know that it is happening, for example, and might not be reasonably expected to know it is happening and it might be happening in the middle of the Amazon in a tribe as yet unknown to the rest of us (reduction ad absurdum). How would there be a moral obligation on us to stop it?

So we than ask why doesn't a good omni god intervene and you claim your god wouldn't allow a child to be tortured to death just for fun.

Now I see what rabbit holes are coming up you will claim 'just for fun' is the motive for the torturer.

So what you are really saying is its wrong for the torturer to allow himself to TACTDJFF but its morally good that your god allows it to happen because gods motive is a good one. However you have previously agreed:-

If morals change according to the moral agent morality is subjective / not objective.
If morals change according to circumstance then the morality is relative / not absolute.

No, I have not previously agreed this. You seem to be muddling up people's morals (what they think is right, and which may well change) and objective morality.

So in all this time using TACTDJFF as an example of objective is categorically wrong because the 'just for fun' part is subjective.

N/A.

[Alien]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

Would it be too much for you to give a logical argument as to why you think this is the case?

[Alien]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.

All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.

The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.

Any chance of a logical argument rather than a rant?

Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.

What's the point of them then? What makes them gods? Do they exist? Why do you think they exist?

[Alien]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.

All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.

The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.

Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.

It is definitely abhorrent to make excuses for the deity!

Any chance of a logical argument, Floo?

[Alien]

The thing is, if the workings of God are so mysterious and we cannot understand them, how can anyone say that God is good?

Surely they would have to understand God to come to that conclusion, unless they are  just guessing and using confirmations bias.

If they do not understand God then they can not know he is good.

That is a misrepresentation of the Christian position, or at least it is a misrepresentation of the position I take. Do you know why?

[Alien]

And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.

Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.

And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.

Why?

See #102.

As in "If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless."?

"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?

[Alien]

...

So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.

No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.

I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".

I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.

If it's not necessary then we can drop it. That seems clear enough.

Unless it helps make things clearer.

[Andy]

And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.

Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.

And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.

Why?

See #102.

As in "If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless."?

"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?

Through simple logic.

[Andy]

...

So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.

No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.

I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".

I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.

If it's not necessary then we can drop it. That seems clear enough.

Unless it helps make things clearer.

Well no, it doesn't. In fact, as has been discussed before, it makes no sense. You can't talk about "just for fun" being always wrong because you are applying it to all possible situations, which therefore negates the "just" as each situation has other differing factors.

[BeRational]

The thing is, if the workings of God are so mysterious and we cannot understand them, how can anyone say that God is good?

Surely they would have to understand God to come to that conclusion, unless they are  just guessing and using confirmations bias.

If they do not understand God then they can not know he is good.

That is a misrepresentation of the Christian position, or at least it is a misrepresentation of the position I take. Do you know why?

So how can you be sure God is good when he does stuff that seems bad?

[jeremyp]

Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds!

Would it be too much for you to give a logical argument as to why you think this is the case?

Well, you keep saying there is some unspecified greater good to come. Has God told you what it is? Do you think it would be a comfort to all those innocents tortured and murdered to know that it was all in the cause of God's alleged nebulous greater good?

When you analyse it, in the context of the World we live in, the idea that its creator is the embodiment of Good is really an insult to our intelligence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

TATCTJFF was chosen as it is clear, whatever method of determining the morality of action, that this is morally wrong and that even if all the world thought it morally OK, it would still be morally wrong.

Try to work out where that sentence goes off the rails. How could "all the world" think it to be right if the only methods available them them lead to the opposite conclusion?

Just to add by the way that you never did manage even to suggest an argument that took you from your opinion (and the opinions of lots of other people) about TACTDJFF and that opinion somehow also being an objective fact.
 

[Owlswing]

When the argument about the "witches" operating as the Devil's servants on Earth was in full spate during the Burning Times it was stated, by the Christian Church, that the Devil was only able to operate in the world by the permission of the Christian god.

Thus all the evil in the world only exists by permission of the Christian god - ergo - the Christian god IS evil considering the suffering he allows in this world and no amount of biblical quotes and verbal gymnastics is going to change that.

Take this to its logical conclusion and the IS exists and operates by the permission of the Christian god - according to some on here - for the greater good!

Greater good - CRAP - considering the number of Christians who have died at the hands of the IS!

Is that meant to be a logical argument against God being good? You seem to write it as if it is something new you have brought to the discussion. It has already been said that, yes, God allows some evil in order that a greater good will occur.

YOU WHAT!

What "greater good" csan there possibly be in the existence of the IS! I cannot see it, or see how there can be any possible "greater good" in the IS!

As far as having any humanity in you, I would consider that this answer shows that you are way out on the terminaly deluded, totally inhiman, wing of Christianity!