On Hell and Forgiveness

[Angrboda]

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. "
H. L. Mencken

[RoadRunner79]

You should learn actual Christian doctrines before criticising.

Why waste time with what is essentially a moving target? Theist sometimes criticize science for continually evolving, yet theology suffers the same flaw.

When you make a general criticism, that doesn’t represent a significant amount of the people being represented, then I think it’s ok to point out the straw man being posited. And I don’t see nothing wrong with a center of study evolving, as long as it’s basis is knowledge and insight. Whether you are talking about science or theology. My theology has evolved a lot over the years.

However even if there is some small group of people who would ignorantly say what the other poster did, it certainly is not biblical.

[The Grand Nudger]

Strangely enough, all the non biblicals swear their stuff is biblical and the other guys stuff aint.

Magic book really is magic!  It means everything and nothing in particular all at once.

[Angrboda]

Why waste time with what is essentially a moving target?  Theist sometimes criticize science for continually evolving, yet theology suffers the same flaw.

When you make a general criticism, that doesn’t represent a significant amount of the people being represented, then I think it’s ok to point out the straw man being posited. And I don’t see nothing wrong with a center of study evolving, as long as it’s basis is knowledge and insight. Whether you are talking about science or theology. My theology has evolved a lot over the years.

However even if there is some small group of people who would ignorantly say what the other poster did, it certainly is not biblical.

Christian doctrine isn't what a majority of people at a specific point in time think. That's an ad populism fail which also ignores the history and pluralism of Christianity.

If Steve wants to amend his complaint to simply that we don't understand him, I will willingly accede.

Possessing knowledge and insight seem to be at war with a subject evolving, depending upon how one conceives of knowledge. Ultimately, I suspect, however you conceive knowledge, theology will end up holding the short stick relative to science.

[Amarok]

When you make a general criticism, that doesn’t represent a significant amount of the people being represented, then I think it’s ok to point out the straw man being posited. And I don’t see nothing wrong with a center of study evolving, as long as it’s basis is knowledge and insight. Whether you are talking about science or theology. My theology has evolved a lot over the years.

However even if there is some small group of people who would ignorantly say what the other poster did, it certainly is not biblical.

Christian doctrine isn't what a majority of people at a specific point in time think.  That's an ad populism fail which also ignores the history and pluralism of Christianity.

If Steve wants to amend his complaint to simply that we don't understand him, I will willingly accede.

Possessing knowledge and insight seem to be at war with a subject evolving, depending upon how one conceives of knowledge.  Ultimately, I suspect, however you conceive knowledge, theology will end up holding the short stick relative to science.

Rule 1 of debating a theist "you don't understand X (when their losing ) " Of course we do they just dislike the fact it's absurd 

Rule 2 "lot's of people agree with us therefore were right "

[RoadRunner79]

You should learn actual Christian doctrines before criticising.

Why would he start now? I find it amusing the massive amounts of time spent by atheists here dreaming up straw men to bash about. I bet only a couple could correctly characterize any 10 main Christian doctrines.

I’m starting to believe that they need a nice soft straw man, to avoid mental injury.

[RoadRunner79]

So then, you switch from arguing against to pleading ignorance?

edit:   Are you saying that their are interpretations, that are not contradictory, and incoherent?   Wouldn't the principle of charity say that you should argue against those, rather than trying to make the argument irrational?

I am saying that I have yet to see a coherent argument being made that doesn't have basic flaws. Furthermore, by refusing to define the relationship 'greater', the whole position on the religious side boils down to hand waving.

So, yes, your refusal to make the required argument means we are ignorant of what you are specifically claiming. This is *your* job to make your argument, not mine. If you think there is a coherent way to assign 'greater' to all virtues simultaneously, please make that argument. If you then make a claim that there is a 'greatest' in that ordering, then make that argument. Both of these claims seem wildly unlikely, though.

But at this point, all you have done is mumble vague platitudes that are unlikely to be anywhere close to correct.

And yes, until you actually do the work, what we understand about orderings makes your claims dubious, at best. More specifically, it appears that many virtues are mutually at odds, making a consistent resolution of these issues doubtful.

It seems silly to me, to argue in one instance, that you don't know what is meant, and then in another instance, to say that it is incoherent.  If you don't understand it, then how can you assess it at all?  I don't expect you to do the work except for your own claims... it's just confusing that you are making claims, and subsequently claim you don't know what you are talking about.

There is some disagreement on what is a great making quality or virtue.  This disagreement however is objective, and not just making statements concerning ones self.   Plantinga describes a maximally great being, or a maximally excellent being in the ontological argument.  I think that the following definition of greatness seems to fit "denoting the element of something that is the most important or the most worthy of consideration"  I am (just now) thinking, that perhaps it is the phrasing "greater" that is tripping you up.  That these "great" make properties can be maximized, as in not lacking in this attribute, or posessing the quality which is contrary in nature.  

As to the claim that some of these are mutually exclusive, that's your claim, and I'm guessing that you are not insinuating that I do your work for you.

[polymath257]

I am saying that I have yet to see a coherent argument being made that doesn't have basic flaws. Furthermore, by refusing to define the relationship 'greater', the whole position on the religious side boils down to hand waving.

So, yes, your refusal to make the required argument means we are ignorant of what you are specifically claiming. This is *your* job to make your argument, not mine. If you think there is a coherent way to assign 'greater' to all virtues simultaneously, please make that argument. If you then make a claim that there is a 'greatest' in that ordering, then make that argument. Both of these claims seem wildly unlikely, though.

But at this point, all you have done is mumble vague platitudes that are unlikely to be anywhere close to correct.

And yes, until you actually do the work, what we understand about orderings makes your claims dubious, at best. More specifically, it appears that many virtues are mutually at odds, making a consistent resolution of these issues doubtful.

It seems silly to me, to argue in one instance, that you don't know what is meant, and then in another instance, to say that it is incoherent.  If you don't understand it, then how can you assess it at all?  I don't expect you to do the work except for your own claims... it's just confusing that you are making claims, and subsequently claim you don't know what you are talking about.

There is some disagreement on what is a great making quality or virtue.  This disagreement however is objective, and not just making statements concerning ones self.   Plantinga describes a maximally great being, or a maximally excellent being in the ontological argument.  I think that the following definition of greatness seems to fit "denoting the element of something that is the most important or the most worthy of consideration"  I am (just now) thinking, that perhaps it is the phrasing "greater" that is tripping you up.  That these "great" make properties can be maximized, as in not lacking in this attribute, or posessing the quality which is contrary in nature.  

As to the claim that some of these are mutually exclusive, that's your claim, and I'm guessing that you are not insinuating that I do your work for you.

Since to be incoherent *means* that no sense can be made of it, I fail to see your problem reconciling not understanding something that is incoherent.

As for consistency of the different virtues, that *is* your job to show they are consistent. I already gave some that seem to be interconnected in ways that preclude maximizing more than one. They don't have to be mutually exclusive to destroy your position. They only need to not allow mutual maxima.

Yes, I have read Platinga. His version of the ontological argument is just as much nonsense as all the previous ones. Possible worlds don't help. When talking about 'most' or 'greatest' or anything along that line, you have to show such actually exists given your way or odering least to most, or lesser to greater. Not all ways of ordering allow single maxima, or even any maximum at all.

[GrandizerII]

If someone argued a maximally great being would be too great to exist, what would the theist's counterargument be?

[RoadRunner79]

It seems silly to me, to argue in one instance, that you don't know what is meant, and then in another instance, to say that it is incoherent.  If you don't understand it, then how can you assess it at all?  I don't expect you to do the work except for your own claims... it's just confusing that you are making claims, and subsequently claim you don't know what you are talking about.

There is some disagreement on what is a great making quality or virtue.  This disagreement however is objective, and not just making statements concerning ones self.   Plantinga describes a maximally great being, or a maximally excellent being in the ontological argument.  I think that the following definition of greatness seems to fit "denoting the element of something that is the most important or the most worthy of consideration"  I am (just now) thinking, that perhaps it is the phrasing "greater" that is tripping you up.  That these "great" make properties can be maximized, as in not lacking in this attribute, or posessing the quality which is contrary in nature.  

As to the claim that some of these are mutually exclusive, that's your claim, and I'm guessing that you are not insinuating that I do your work for you.

Since to be incoherent *means* that no sense can be made of it, I fail to see your problem reconciling not understanding something that is incoherent.

As for consistency of the different virtues, that *is* your job to show they are consistent. I already gave some that seem to be interconnected in ways that preclude maximizing more than one. They don't have to be mutually exclusive to destroy your position. They only need to not allow mutual maxima.

Yes, I have read Platinga. His version of the ontological argument is just as much nonsense as all the previous ones. Possible worlds don't help. When talking about 'most' or 'greatest' or anything along that line, you have to show such actually exists given your way or odering least to most, or lesser to greater. Not all ways of ordering allow single maxima, or even any maximum at all.

Still seems like you are using incoherent in two different ways, or at least making two arguments which do not work together.