(April 9, 2009 at 7:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Like I said, morals don't apply to God. Our own interests are insignificant. Our labels are insufficient. It's egotistical to presume they are. That would be to limit God, which is illogical.

Yet you claim you can label God as being "all good"?? This seems so contradictory to me.
Morals don't apply to God- yet God is all good
Our own interests are insignificant- yet your claim that God is all good stands true
Our labels are insufficient- yet calling him all good is a fitting label
It's egotistical to presume they are- yet assuming God is all good is fine
That would be to limit God- yet limiting him to fit under one moral catergory is fine?

It seems your entire paragraph there is in stark contradiction to your main premise.

haha, bozo, ill go post in the other thread!!

(April 9, 2009 at 7:20 pm)LukeMC Wrote: It seems your entire paragraph there is in stark contradiction to your main premise.

How so?

(April 10, 2009 at 3:51 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 9, 2009 at 7:20 pm)LukeMC Wrote: It seems your entire paragraph there is in stark contradiction to your main premise.

How so?

Oh dear.

I really shouldn't go over this again but if you're going to be like that...

Morals don't apply to God
Yet you stated that God is all good, therefore applying morals to God. <<<THIS part is a contradiction.

Our own interests are insignificant
Yet you stated that God is all good, which is a complete waste of time as your interpretations of God's nature and actions mean nothing. What you choose to believe is insignificant and we needn't consider it to be any more true than any other claim.

Our labels are insufficient
Yet you label God as good and claim this suffices as an accurate claim. <contradiction

It is egotistical to presume they are
Yet you still do it. <contradiction

That would be to limit God
Yet you blatently limit God to being only good, labelling him so and presuming his nature. <contradiction

If you can't see the contradictions there you must be performing some sort of parody. Nobody can be that oblivious.

1. You applied morals to God, I didn't. I just said we can know that God is good. How is that moral when applied to God?
2. I didn't 'claim' anything. I believe that to be true, and showed you how I reason that. This will have no bearing on your reality at all.
3. Again, you wanted to label God with a human characteristic, not me. I pointed out reasoning why that isn't logical. Again. I make no claim.
4. I don't label with human characteristic. I show how reasoning helps to know God's nature.
5. From my reasoning we can know this about God's nature. This isn't all there is to God.

(April 10, 2009 at 11:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. You applied morals to God, I didn't. I just said we can know that God is good.

Self evident contradiction.

fr0d0 Wrote:. I didn't 'claim' anything. I believe that to be true, and showed you how I reason that. This will have no bearing on your reality at all.

You said/stated/announced/claimed that God is all good. I agree that it has no bearing on my reality, only on your perception of reality.

fr0d0 Wrote:3. Again, you wanted to label God with a human characteristic, not me. I pointed out reasoning why that isn't logical. Again. I make no claim.

I'm quite convinced I only entered this debate after you claimed that God is all good (post#20). Therefore it was you who wanted to label God with a human characteristic (although not strictly a characteristic exclusive to humans).

fr0d0 Wrote:4. I don't label with human characteristic. I show how reasoning helps to know God's nature.

One of your first replies to me was on the topic of jealousy and you told me it is alright for God in the context of a loving carer. To me, this seems like you're applying human traits to God (jealousy, love, parent-like care).

fr0d0 Wrote:5. From my reasoning we can know this about God's nature. This isn't all there is to God.

Yeah, I didn't assume "God is all good" to be the absolute peak of our knowlegde of his nature. I merely wanted to point out that you have limited God to only being capable of "good" things, before going on to claim that characterising God limits him which is illogical.

I don't 'claim' that God is good. That God is good, is a Christian assertion. A non Christian can think what the hell they like. I have no objection to that.

I think I should concede over the description thing. Yes, potentially we can't limit God or assume to know anything. In that way God could be good and/ or bad. This isn't the God I experience in my faith-life. The God I experience follows my system of belief, which happens to be Christianity.

The Bible from a Christian perspective is the New Testament overriding the Old, as I'm sure you're aware. The OT is useful in establishing the nature of God, and the progression that leads to this loving God. It also has some incredible truths as well. Discussion about the nasty God would maybe get further with Jews as their faith doesn't cancel any of that out.

How can you have goodness without morality? We determine what is good and what is bad by our moral outlook. Thus morals must apply if we call something "good".

Haha yeah the jews don't have a leg to stand on. However I'd also dispute the validity of claiming the new testament overrides the old. Despite what is said in Hebrews 7:18-19, Jesus was pretty damn clear in asserting that he wasn't there to override the old laws and that not a stroke of the pen should disappear from those laws (Matthew 5:17-20). I suppose Jesus was being funny again and speaking in a way only christians will ever understand properly.

And I don't think you can have it both ways with God. You can either assume his nature and characteristics or you can claim for him to be limitless and beyond our comprehension. If you are a proponant of the latter approach (which you seemed to be in some posts) then the former position would be contradictory (or just pointless) as you would be assuming the characteristics of an entity you claim to be above our ability to characterise. If you cannot put a limit on God then you cannot assert that you know God or can label and characterise him in any way. In this sense God is unknowable in every sense of the word and assuming his existence would be exactly the same as assuming his non-existence, for both positions possess an equal amount of knowledge of God- the amount being 0 (just like it would be in a universe where God doesn't exist).

Also, with this in mind one would have to scrap a great deal of the bible as it characterises God many times with human traits. If God is beyond our capacity to encapsulate as you said, the bible was making things up when it claimed God to be fatherly, loving, caring, jealous, aggressive, tired, and all the other things he ever felt.

Perhaps I'm being a little too black-and-white here. It just seems that with a God whose traits are unverifiable by nature, the theists following this God are making extraordinary leaps of faith when they put together pieces of the bible to get an "idea" of what God "might" be like. The can't verify it, they can't be sure of it, they might be wrong in everything they assume. I suppose this is why faith is so necessary. When you know that you cannot know something, you read an ancient book and hope to God that your assumptions of his nature are correct. If the bible were the word of God, its characterisations would certainly serve as an excellent "starter pack" for understanding God with our limited capacity. In which case, no claims could be made, but you can have your own personal understanding of what God could be like.

If you feel the need to further this debate then feel free. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've just gained a deeper knowledge of how your system of beliefs works. While it seems absurd to me, I have a greater understanding of how some of your decisions are being made. Perhaps I've totally mis-characterised your position but from what you've said in this exchange I think my last paragraph makes a reasonable summary.

Yeah I don't think you quite get it LukeMC.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: I'd also dispute the validity of claiming the new testament overrides the old. Despite what is said in Hebrews 7:18-19, Jesus was pretty damn clear in asserting that he wasn't there to override the old laws and that not a stroke of the pen should disappear from those laws (Matthew 5:17-20). I suppose Jesus was being funny again and speaking in a way only christians will ever understand properly.

Yes you're right here. Those laws that are indisputable carried forward. There's a distinct turnaround though in that Jesus came to be forgiveness. Like the rainbow before, but this was complete forgiveness and a turnaround in God's methods.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: And I don't think you can have it both ways with God. You can either assume his nature and characteristics or you can claim for him to be limitless and beyond our comprehension. If you are a proponant of the latter approach (which you seemed to be in some posts) then the former position would be contradictory (or just pointless) as you would be assuming the characteristics of an entity you claim to be above our ability to characterise. If you cannot put a limit on God then you cannot assert that you know God or can label and characterise him in any way. In this sense God is unknowable in every sense of the word and assuming his existence would be exactly the same as assuming his non-existence, for both positions possess an equal amount of knowledge of God- the amount being 0 (just like it would be in a universe where God doesn't exist).

Idealogically we can't put a limit on God. This is the theoretical and purist stance. On top of that I have reasoning presented in the Bible on the Nature of God, that establishes him with actual attributes. From this I can narrow the definition of God.

From a wider philosophical position, God is unknowable. From reasoned observation recorded in the Bible, from a Christian perspective, we can narrow down the definition.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Also, with this in mind one would have to scrap a great deal of the bible as it characterises God many times with human traits. If God is beyond our capacity to encapsulate as you said, the bible was making things up when it claimed God to be fatherly, loving, caring, jealous, aggressive, tired, and all the other things he ever felt.

Like I said, descriptions of God have to be put into terms that humans understand. The Christian God obviously isn't above our capacity to encapsulate.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Perhaps I'm being a little too black-and-white here. It just seems that with a God whose traits are unverifiable by nature, the theists following this God are making extraordinary leaps of faith when they put together pieces of the bible to get an "idea" of what God "might" be like. The can't verify it, they can't be sure of it, they might be wrong in everything they assume. I suppose this is why faith is so necessary. When you know that you cannot know something, you read an ancient book and hope to God that your assumptions of his nature are correct. If the bible were the word of God, its characterisations would certainly serve as an excellent "starter pack" for understanding God with our limited capacity. In which case, no claims could be made, but you can have your own personal understanding of what God could be like.

The leap of faith is a singular one of God's existence. The rest involves rational thinking. Everything follows logically. Theists can and do verify it. They can and are sure of the vast majority of it.

The ancient book is just a collection of observations and non factual stories about God gathered over a long period of time. The point being to establish God's nature. From rational observations we can come to conclusions.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: If you feel the need to further this debate then feel free. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've just gained a deeper knowledge of how your system of beliefs works. While it seems absurd to me, I have a greater understanding of how some of your decisions are being made. Perhaps I've totally mis-characterised your position but from what you've said in this exchange I think my last paragraph makes a reasonable summary.

It should be absurd to you. Without accepting the assumption that takes the leap of faith, it has to be. It seems you're still a little confused to me.