(November 11, 2020 at 10:22 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: One last thing I will mention. If you think it's unfair for the innocent to suffer, then consider that Jesus Christ, Who was as innocent as they come, willingly laid down His life and suffered perhaps the most horrible possible way to die. He has partaken of this suffering just as we have. The people who deserve the blame are the ones committing the sins: us.

Jesus had no choice. He laid down his life because he is morally perfect and doing the morally best thing was dictated by his nature. Or are you saying Jesus isn't morally perfect?

(November 11, 2020 at 10:19 am)Angrboda Wrote: That's quite the contortionist act.  You claim that you gave me the benefit of the doubt, except for the fact that you didn't because you followed that with a "but" which basically erases what comes before it.  And I'm a bad person for having been hostile in the past, but when you were hostile it was because you had Reasons[tm].  I see how this works.  It's all, "heads I win, tails you lose."  And you think the hostility toward you is a result of their behavior, not yours?  How self-serving.  Maybe you should accept some responsibility for the type of responses your behavior generates.

As to whether I was hostile or not, I was simply pointing out that positing confidence and arrogance as being opposed is a false dichotomy.  You're the one who took it and ran with it into your paranoid fantasies.  Arewethereyet didn't accuse you of anything but having a high opinion of yourself.  And look at all this sauce.

I didn't realize until today who you were under your previous user name, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Now I'm skeptical, but still willing to extend you the courtesy.

I have no interest in avoiding blame if I've been unduly hostile in the past, however I'm not sure I have been. I often think I'm being too harsh with people, but here the dialogue tends to be particularly vile and I think my responses are generally correct and deserved. But I don't have the time or interest to dredge up the past and see who did what or said what in order to properly determine blame.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you willing to do the same?

Arewethereyet is a different story. Do you think the accusation he made is a decent way to begin a conversation? What did I say to deserve that response? Not that I care. He can think what he wants to think, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore unnecessary barbs. Seems to me you are enforcing a double standard.

---

(November 11, 2020 at 10:26 am)Angrboda Wrote: Jesus had no choice.  He laid down his life because he is morally perfect and doing the morally best thing was dictated by his nature.  Or are you saying Jesus isn't morally perfect?

Of course Jesus had a choice: "Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

But as He said, the Scriptures must be fulfilled. He fulfilled them not because He had to, but because He chose to lay down His life. God always has a choice, because He is God.

Maybe I don't understand your question, though.

---

(November 11, 2020 at 10:25 am)Eleven Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 10:22 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: Yes, you atheists and agnostics always seem to bring this up as your ultimate argument for why God can't possibly exist, or why if He does then He is evil. Did you not read the article I linked to? Here it is again: https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings...f-evil.htm

That's called a biased source. Untrustworthy.

A biased source? How do you know they are biased, and not simply speaking the truth? Who are you to determine bias?

And in any case, I offered my "TL;DR".

(November 11, 2020 at 10:33 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 10:19 am)Angrboda Wrote: That's quite the contortionist act.  You claim that you gave me the benefit of the doubt, except for the fact that you didn't because you followed that with a "but" which basically erases what comes before it.  And I'm a bad person for having been hostile in the past, but when you were hostile it was because you had Reasons[tm].  I see how this works.  It's all, "heads I win, tails you lose."  And you think the hostility toward you is a result of their behavior, not yours?  How self-serving.  Maybe you should accept some responsibility for the type of responses your behavior generates.

As to whether I was hostile or not, I was simply pointing out that positing confidence and arrogance as being opposed is a false dichotomy.  You're the one who took it and ran with it into your paranoid fantasies.  Arewethereyet didn't accuse you of anything but having a high opinion of yourself.  And look at all this sauce.

I didn't realize until today who you were under your previous user name, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Now I'm skeptical, but still willing to extend you the courtesy.

I have no interest in avoiding blame if I've been unduly hostile in the past, however I'm not sure I have been. I often think I'm being too harsh with people, but here the dialogue tends to be particularly vile and I think my responses are generally correct and deserved. But I don't have the time or interest to dredge up the past and see who did what or said what in order to properly determine blame.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you willing to do the same?

Arewethereyet is a different story. Do you think the accusation he made is a decent way to begin a conversation? What did I say to deserve that response? Not that I care. He can think what he wants to think, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore unnecessary barbs. Seems to me you are enforcing a double standard.

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that arewethereyet is a woman. Second, everybody believes themselves to have acted well and the other acted poorly, that's just the default. So saying that you think you have acted well and others acted poorly simply suggests that you are somewhat lacking in insight.

As to myself, I've often used harsh language to call out stupidity or dishonesty in the past, but I generally don't come to a discussion with hostility.

And I have changed in the past year. Pointing out mistakes made by morons is good sport, but it's not where I'm at today.

(November 11, 2020 at 10:33 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 10:26 am)Angrboda Wrote: Jesus had no choice.  He laid down his life because he is morally perfect and doing the morally best thing was dictated by his nature.  Or are you saying Jesus isn't morally perfect?

Of course Jesus had a choice:  "Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

But as He said, the Scriptures must be fulfilled. He fulfilled them not because He had to, but because He chose to lay down His life. God always has a choice, because He is God.

Maybe I don't understand your question, though.

If scriptures "must" be fulfilled then Jesus had no choice because having a choice implies he could have done otherwise, but as you yourself admit, he was responding to a necessity, it wasn't an option. Btw, Alvin Plantinga in his free will defense argues that for a choice to be morally significant or meaningful, the actor must have had the opportunity to behave badly. Do you agree? If so, does God have the option of acting badly, or would that be inconsistent with his nature?

(November 11, 2020 at 10:33 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: A biased source? How do you know they are biased, and not simply speaking the truth? Who are you to determine bias?

And in any case, I offered my "TL;DR".

Perhaps become familiar with that which we are discussing.

(November 11, 2020 at 10:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that arewethereyet is a woman.  Second, everybody believes themselves to have acted well and the other acted poorly, that's just the default.  So saying that you think you have acted well and others acted poorly simply suggests that you are somewhat lacking in insight.

As to myself, I've often used harsh language to call out stupidity or dishonesty in the past, but I generally don't come to a discussion with hostility.  

And I have changed in the past year.  Pointing out mistakes made by morons is good sport, but it's not where I'm at today.

Fair enough, I suppose. I see no reason to argue this point any further.

(November 11, 2020 at 10:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: If scriptures "must" be fulfilled then Jesus had no choice because having a choice implies he could have done otherwise, but as you yourself admit, he was responding to a necessity, it wasn't an option.  Btw, Alvin Plantinga in his free will defense argues that for a choice to be morally significant or meaningful, the actor must have had the opportunity to behave badly.  Do you agree?  If so, does God have the option of acting badly, or would that be inconsistent with his nature?

Jesus Christ saving Himself from a wrongful execution wouldn't have been "behaving badly." It would have been perfectly within His right, being our Creator and innocent.

Many think of Jesus Christ as being part of a trinity, which is pagan nonsense. He IS the Father, therefore He made the choice before He was ever born as a man.

(November 11, 2020 at 11:02 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 10:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that arewethereyet is a woman.  Second, everybody believes themselves to have acted well and the other acted poorly, that's just the default.  So saying that you think you have acted well and others acted poorly simply suggests that you are somewhat lacking in insight.

As to myself, I've often used harsh language to call out stupidity or dishonesty in the past, but I generally don't come to a discussion with hostility.  

And I have changed in the past year.  Pointing out mistakes made by morons is good sport, but it's not where I'm at today.

Fair enough, I suppose. I see no reason to argue this point any further.

(November 11, 2020 at 10:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: If scriptures "must" be fulfilled then Jesus had no choice because having a choice implies he could have done otherwise, but as you yourself admit, he was responding to a necessity, it wasn't an option.  Btw, Alvin Plantinga in his free will defense argues that for a choice to be morally significant or meaningful, the actor must have had the opportunity to behave badly.  Do you agree?  If so, does God have the option of acting badly, or would that be inconsistent with his nature?

Jesus Christ saving Himself from a wrongful execution wouldn't have been "behaving badly." It would have been perfectly within His right, being our Creator and innocent.

Many think of Jesus Christ as being part of a trinity, which is pagan nonsense. He IS the Father, therefore He made the choice before He was ever born as a man.

For God, anything short of moral perfection is behaving badly. Would Jesus saving himself have been as moral as sacrificing himself? If not, then he didn't have a choice. You didn't answer my other questions, btw.

This brings up a related question. Is it coherent to think of God as being moral, but not virtuous? If God's virtue demands a sacrifice, he again had no choice.

(November 11, 2020 at 10:57 am)Eleven Wrote: Perhaps become familiar with that which we are discussing.

I'm not going to split hairs over semantics, particularly when I've already offered you an alternative source. Besides, I wasn't appealing to authority, I was merely providing a text that explained my own belief. You don't have to agree with it, but you could at least read that or respond to my "tl;dr" instead of waste my time.

(November 11, 2020 at 11:07 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: instead of waste my time.

And here I was thinking the time waster was you. If you still wonder why we treat you this way, it's not our fault.

(November 11, 2020 at 11:05 am)Angrboda Wrote: For God, anything short of moral perfection is behaving badly.  Would Jesus saving himself have been as moral as sacrificing himself?  If not, then he didn't have a choice.  You didn't answer my other questions, btw.

This brings up a related question.  Is it coherent to think of God as being moral, but not virtuous?  If God's virtue demands a sacrifice, he again had no choice.

I suppose you have somewhat of a point here. My only problem with your premise is that since we all deserve to die, Him not sacrificing Himself would have been perfectly just. The problem with that is that He did subject us to this horrible experience in the first place, which would obligate Him to eventually save us, therefore one could view His sacrifice as a responsibility, which any moral character would fulfill.

However, all one must do in this case is rewind to before He created anything at all, and realize that that was when He made the choice. God always has a choice, or He isn't God at all.

I think it's coherent to think of God as being righteous. Moral seems to me to be a human word, since our morals are created in the first place by God. Virtuous I think is basically synonymous with righteous, but I think the latter works better in the context of God because virtue doesn't necessarily imply perfection. I think righteous does. All subjective, of course, those are just my thoughts.

As for your other question, I'm not familiar with Plantinga's free will defense, so I'm afraid I can't thoroughly answer, except to say that free will is an illusion, and that we all behave badly except by the grace of God, so we are automatically all immoral and can't even make a decision to be anything other than that. We're rotten to the core. I don't see how the argument can be applied to God.

(November 11, 2020 at 11:19 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I think it's coherent to think of God as being righteous.

Quite the opposite, actually. Why is it that those who want to be ruled under a dictatorship see nothing but good in it?