(February 21, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Nope Wrote: The god of the bible is a sociopath. I am curious if Christians can explain why their god is good without resorting to "Because the bible says"

I have not had the time to sift through all the voluminous responses to this thread, but I expect that the majority of them consist of judgments and counter judgements, accusations and counter accusations, condemnations and counter condemnations. In other words, the answers reflect the world at large and the human condition we find ourselves in. If it proves anything, it proves that any "answer" has an equal an opposite rebuttal. In that sense it mirrors action and reaction in the physical sciences. Anyway, the whole thing becomes an exercise in "one-upmanship" that is summarized in Rhianna's song, "Stay" where she says, "Round and a round and around and around we go...." We perpetuate the situation none of us can stand.

That being my preface, I am curious if we might be able to approach the thread not by providing the best answer, but by continually refining the question. This was a technique used by Peter Abelard, who was one of the fathers of scholasticism (and declared a heretic as a result). The advantage of the approach is that we will never be satisfied with an answer, no matter how elegant its logic be because, as Leonard Cohen says, "Everything has a crack in it, that's how the light gets in." Questions however, do not have the same fault. They do not attempt to encapsulate truth, but keep everything open ended...infinite in possibility...and without boundaries. Sound like freedom to me!

(March 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm)daver49 Wrote: That being my preface, I am curious if we might be able to approach the thread not by providing the best answer, but by continually refining the question.

Okay. I'll try. What the hell you talking about?



But seriously, go for it. But I have no idea how anyone will make any progress toward the thread's title.

(March 15, 2015 at 10:42 pm)whateverist Wrote: Okay. I'll try. What the hell you talking about?

Ha!! You ARE a humorist! Why do you call yourself a "secular" one?

Took me forever to get around to editing that post. Good on you for seeing through the humor without the blinky smilie.

Well so far this thread has been a desperate attempt to either render the word "good" meaningless or to announce god's actions as good, whatever they are.

The problem is that the bible clearly describes an evil monster, so the first step in demonstrating that God is "good" in any meaningful sense is explaining why he's not the same character.

Otherwise it's just pointless word games, in my opinion.

(March 15, 2015 at 11:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Took me forever to get around to editing that post. Good on you for seeing through the humor without the blinky smilie.

A while back I came to the realization that cable/network "news" is a joke and that the humorists seemed to be the only ones who could see it. Thus the popularity of such guys as Colbert and Stewart. They are really modern day prophets in the way they speak truth to power. It is refreshing when we don't take ourselves so seriously, and we need people who can help us do that.

But, not so seriously, what is the distinction between just plain "humorist" and "secular humorist?"

---

(March 16, 2015 at 4:34 am)robvalue Wrote: Well so far this thread has been a desperate attempt to either render the word "good" meaningless or to announce god's actions as good, whatever they are.

The problem is that the bible clearly describes an evil monster, so the first step in demonstrating that God is "good" in any meaningful sense is explaining why he's not the same character.

Otherwise it's just pointless word games, in my opinion.

I think people may be better off (whatever that is) if they realize it is a game/dance/song. That way it can be enjoyable...emotionally perhaps a step ahead of "desperate." People seem to do wild and crazy things when they are desperate. Anyway, just a point of view from endless points of view....

(March 16, 2015 at 8:34 am)daver49 Wrote: It is refreshing when we don't take ourselves so seriously, and we need people who can help us do that.

But, not so seriously, what is the distinction between just plain "humorist" and "secular humorist?"

It gives me a chance to turn down the "spiciesist" connotation of secular "humanist". Using "humorist" instead lets me thumb my nose at the sappy sincerity of a humanist. Keeping "secular" sets it up to make the contrast all the more jarring.

Hi daver

(March 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm)daver49 Wrote: If it proves anything, it proves that any "answer" has an equal an opposite rebuttal.

Then you definitely haven't read this thread! It's been totally one-sided. In fact, I think you'll find that true, generally, of discussions where christians are trying to demonstrate the 'goodness' of their god.

Quote:That being my preface, I am curious if we might be able to approach the thread not by providing the best answer, but by continually refining the question.

There's no question in the OP, simply a challenge which has yet to be met. What question do you think is being asked?

That one.

(March 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Hi daver

(March 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm)daver49 Wrote: If it proves anything, it proves that any "answer" has an equal an opposite rebuttal.

Then you definitely haven't read this thread! It's been totally one-sided. In fact, I think you'll find that true, generally, of discussions where christians are trying to demonstrate the 'goodness' of their god.

You are correct, I haven't read the entire thread...just enough to get a flavor. But I wasn't referring to the fact that the greater number of responses are from the Christian side, but that for each response (no matter what side it falls on) there exists an opposite stance that also lays claim to the status of being right/true/best. An example might be, "The Bible is just a book of fantasy and fable like Grimm's Fairy Tales."

Quote:That being my preface, I am curious if we might be able to approach the thread not by providing the best answer, but by continually refining the question.

There's no question in the OP, simply a challenge which has yet to be met. What question do you think is being asked?

The question (without a question mark) posed in None's first line: if Christians can explain why (my italics) their god is good without resorting to "Because the bible says" I would also say any statement construed as a challenge implies a question like: "can you do better?" In the case we are discussing, the question is more like, "Can't you do any better than that?" I believe that is a perfectly valid question because we know one side begins by not accepting the authority of the Bible, while another one does. So, how to bridge the gap? Do people want to bridge the gap? Does it even matter?