RE: Plantinga's "Free Will" defense contradicts Christianity
February 7, 2020 at 3:54 pm
(This post was last modified: February 7, 2020 at 3:58 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I think it does make a difference, and it resolves alot of the things that any person, christian or atheist, might otherwise struggle with.
There's a vast amount of moral discontinuity between the christian god and the OT god. That's largely due to discontinuity in god beliefs and moral systems between the people who came up with the respective works of fiction. Platingas god, for example, bears little resemblance to the god of the hebrews. They did not seek to constrain gods potency, and did not need to do so in order to resolve a moral issue that would not have struck them -as- a moral issue. By the metrics of Platingas moral system, and within the context of thew god that he believes in, much of the OT is negotiable. He's very much in the habit of deferring to some message from god in these stories..when they contradict fact. Whether there was ever a global flood, for example, unimportant. There is, presumably, a message that the flood narrative is intended to convey, and only god..it's author, can know what that is.
No, John, assuming what you have to say is true doesn't resolve any dilemma, you're just refusing to confront them.
You don't have to, it's not a problem for you, just as there are things in Platingas formulation that are problems for him, but not for you. You don't believe that the fruit was moral knowledge, but that doesn't change anything about the objection from that belief. No more so than you not accepting Platingas arguments would make valid criticism of that argument, somehow, suddenly invalid.
There's a vast amount of moral discontinuity between the christian god and the OT god. That's largely due to discontinuity in god beliefs and moral systems between the people who came up with the respective works of fiction. Platingas god, for example, bears little resemblance to the god of the hebrews. They did not seek to constrain gods potency, and did not need to do so in order to resolve a moral issue that would not have struck them -as- a moral issue. By the metrics of Platingas moral system, and within the context of thew god that he believes in, much of the OT is negotiable. He's very much in the habit of deferring to some message from god in these stories..when they contradict fact. Whether there was ever a global flood, for example, unimportant. There is, presumably, a message that the flood narrative is intended to convey, and only god..it's author, can know what that is.
No, John, assuming what you have to say is true doesn't resolve any dilemma, you're just refusing to confront them.
You don't have to, it's not a problem for you, just as there are things in Platingas formulation that are problems for him, but not for you. You don't believe that the fruit was moral knowledge, but that doesn't change anything about the objection from that belief. No more so than you not accepting Platingas arguments would make valid criticism of that argument, somehow, suddenly invalid.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
