(March 4, 2014 at 11:31 pm)Drich Wrote: God can't exist according to you, but in the same arguement, Satan can and you would like you know him better...

Wow..

I didn't say he can't exist. I'm saying he likely doesn't. and of course if both were proven to be true, I'd want to talk with Satan as much as I'd want to talk to Yahweh. Why wouldn't I want to get both sides of the story before making a decision?

(March 4, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Polaris Wrote: I liked Milton's Paradise Lost...what's the value in being good if you can't test it....there is no good without a temptation of evil.

I guess that depends on whether you think good and evil are discrete, free floating concepts, or whether they're attached to physical actions and effects in reality. I tend to go for the latter, and in that case, good definitely exists without evil; you can perform a good, beneficial action in the absence of any possible evil, detrimental one. It's far fetched I know, but you could go your entire life without ever being able to perform an evil action, and still demonstrably do good, because the alternative to good isn't evil, it's neutral. There are three options there.

(March 1, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Drich Wrote: But that's just it. Not all of humanity are The children of God. Christ likened us 'Christians' to a field of wheat, and everyone else as 'weeds' the field owner's enemy planted. God offers boundless love to His children. How is this any different than what we do? If a neighbors kids harassed and beat your children would you love those kids as your own? Why would God?

God is supposed to be capable of more love than I am. Why must you always justify your god's actions by the actions of supposedly lesser and simpler beings?

Would I love those kids as my own? No. Should we expect better out of a 'perfect' god? Absolutely. You, on the other hand, hold humanity to higher expectations than you do your god.

Quote:But you haven't have you? You have forgiven one or two instances. Sin (any sin) to God is like the betrayal of adultery to us. If each sin is like your wife cheating one you how many times would you think you could simply look the other way?

I could certainly view any transgression against me as ULTIMATE AND ETERNAL and vow to punish everyone who does it as often and as intensely as I can, but my capacity for forgiveness is superior to your god's, because I choose not to.

Your god could shrug off the worst sins as if they were nothing. Fuck him if he doesn't. If he didn't want sin, he should have made better people, or no people at all.

(March 5, 2014 at 3:50 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Polaris Wrote: I liked Milton's Paradise Lost...what's the value in being good if you can't test it....there is no good without a temptation of evil.

I guess that depends on whether you think good and evil are discrete, free floating concepts, or whether they're attached to physical actions and effects in reality. I tend to go for the latter, and in that case, good definitely exists without evil; you can perform a good, beneficial action in the absence of any possible evil, detrimental one. It's far fetched I know, but you could go your entire life without ever being able to perform an evil action, and still demonstrably do good, because the alternative to good isn't evil, it's neutral. There are three options there.

The problem is that, whether someone is considered good or evil, isn't up to individuals to decide. I think it's both a sort of concept, as well as attached to actions. Someone can do something that they think is the right thing to do, and not lose a wink of sleep at night, while another person can look on in horror and call for the first person's head.

"How the smeg can a man be a hero in one reality and a villain in the next, for doing exactly the same things?"
— Lister, Red Dwarf

(March 5, 2014 at 10:14 am)Chad32 Wrote: The problem is that, whether someone is considered good or evil, isn't up to individuals to decide. I think it's both a sort of concept, as well as attached to actions. Someone can do something that they think is the right thing to do, and not lose a wink of sleep at night, while another person can look on in horror and call for the first person's head.

"How the smeg can a man be a hero in one reality and a villain in the next, for doing exactly the same things?"
— Lister, Red Dwarf

Kudos for the Red Dwarf line, for sure, but we do have an objective measure by which we can ascertain the morality of an action, irrespective of the opinions of others; the reality around us doesn't change. The benefits/harm of any given action can be assessed objectively.

(February 24, 2014 at 10:39 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Christianity looks a lot like the Cthulhu Mythos from a certain angle.

Lovecraft is hardly given enough credit for really cracking how raw mythology forms.

The only point in Christianity is the point of the sword.

(March 5, 2014 at 10:21 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 5, 2014 at 10:14 am)Chad32 Wrote: The problem is that, whether someone is considered good or evil, isn't up to individuals to decide. I think it's both a sort of concept, as well as attached to actions. Someone can do something that they think is the right thing to do, and not lose a wink of sleep at night, while another person can look on in horror and call for the first person's head.

"How the smeg can a man be a hero in one reality and a villain in the next, for doing exactly the same things?"
— Lister, Red Dwarf

Kudos for the Red Dwarf line, for sure, but we do have an objective measure by which we can ascertain the morality of an action, irrespective of the opinions of others; the reality around us doesn't change. The benefits/harm of any given action can be assessed objectively.

I can understand if an action does more harm than good, it's bad. If it does more good than harm, it's good. It's just that these things have been debated since forever. Of course on some big things, like mass murder, I believe are just bad. Yet I do believe that in some cases an individual just needs to be removed from life.

Most likely some morality is objective, and some is subjective.

The main point of life for any Christian is staying focused on an after life. Many Christians focus more on scoring points in an after life than living altruistically, in the present.

Which explains why many are disingenuous douche bags, feigning kindness.

(March 5, 2014 at 10:40 am)Chad32 Wrote: I can understand if an action does more harm than good, it's bad. If it does more good than harm, it's good. It's just that these things have been debated since forever. Of course on some big things, like mass murder, I believe are just bad. Yet I do believe that in some cases an individual just needs to be removed from life.

Most likely some morality is objective, and some is subjective.

That's basically my position too, though I think even for moral questions we would deem subjective, there would be a course of action that produces objectively the best set of effects. It's just that the limitations of our brains and predictive capabilities would make that impossible to properly grasp the first time around.

So even if we have subjective moral opinions on a given subject, we can correct those on the fly in accordance with whatever effects we're given.