Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

Spell your logic out for me.

ETA: Nevermind Syne. I misread your post. All good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Syne

So you think I should have corrected someone who thinks that an omnipotent all powerful God can suffer?

Consider it done.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry about that, Rav. I have corrected that post for clarity:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is your rationale for barring a omnipotent being from experiencing suffering? Wouldn't that simply defeat the definition of being omnipotent? If such could not do something, i.e. suffer, then it is not omnipotent.

 

How do we know?
God cannot do many things including reproducing true without having to resort to fathering a half breed chimera. Yet Christians still say he is omnipotent.

I agree it is a lie if that is what you are implying.

And when he did father, he did what a deadbeat dad does. How is that for morals?

Regards
DL

 

You're still misunderstanding traditional Christian theology. I'm not just making this stuff up, you know. It's what the majority of Christian theologians (and more knowledgeable practitioners) will tell you. The father and the son are expressions of the same entity. Further, consider the following passage which I briefly discussed in another thread not so long ago:

There are a number of other verses that highlight this equality, and I don't see any reason why playing the role of a servant is at odds with any reasonable definition of omnipotence.

If you want to tackle Christian theology effectively, you need to learn more about it first (and perhaps some additional philosophy too). As it stands right now, you're making too many mistakes.

 

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

 

You seriously need to differentiate between what an omnipotent being can do and what one may choose to do. These are two very different things. Again, you have conflated these to make a false dilemma.

 

If God chooses not to do the omnipotent thing, then believers who give him that attribute are lying outright.

Regards
DL

 

So by that argument an omnipotent being could not be so unless it had no choice in doing everything it was capable of. That is just contradictory.

 

If we define omnipotence as the exercising of power, such a being would have to be doing absolutely everything, all the time, in order to be omnipotent. You know, endlessly creating and destroying universes, turning them inside out, transforming black holes into pink unicorns... not much of a chance for the evolution of a civilization in there.

Exercising power is not a prerequisite for wielding it.

 

Proof is in the doing and my remark was to those who claim it and not the God who says it.

Regards
DL

 

If not exercised then people giving that attribute without evidence are lying.

Regards
DL

 

Either way it is contradictory to insist that an omnipotent being has no choice but to do everything it is capable of. If incapable of choice, any such evidence of absolute exercise of power would be against the possibility for omnipotence.

 

Whatever.
Again, my comment was directed to believers. Not God.

Regards
DL

 

No assailing that logic.

My reply about evidence was in direct response to this equivocation.

 

Issues of his arguments shuts Greatest I am up.

 

Have you read a bible? Or even skimmed one?

1.) God didn't just sacrifice his son he sacrificed himself. Holy trinity? God=Jesus= Holy Spirit? So in that case that would make God a martyr by sacrificing himself AND his son in order to save EVERYONE.
2.) Have you read the bible? Try reading genisis it explains about these "unmoral sacrifices" are things like birds and sheep not people's children. God killed first born sons in Egypt to free the people they were holding as slaves.
3.) The other time God told people to kill their children was in the case of Isaac who was the son. And when his father tried to kill him God stopped him. It was a test of faith.
4.) As for morals try the ten commandments and the two great commandments? Which most of have become LAWS in countries. Odd how you think that Christains don't have morals because then countries wouldn't have morals if they base their laws on the laws of Christains.
Being Christain isn't about teaching morals. If you believe in God then, the morals will come from that.

 

Do you find it strange and immoral that God would harden Pharaoh's soft heart that was going to let Moses go with his people, to a mind set against and thus pave the way for God's murder of the first born?

This shows God wanting to kill when there was no need to.

Also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

 

Who's running away?

I’m very happy to engage with you on this, my friend. I’ve been a Bible-believing Christian for 35 years, and can assure you that the moral standard of the God of the Bible is far higher than that of anyone on the earth, including your good self.

As I understand it, your problem is that in order to deal with the problem of sin God sent Jesus to suffer on the cross, shed His blood, and die; and you see this as being in violation of the highest principle of morality, which is to care for others, especially children, and to keep them from harm.

Before we get to the Bible let’s ask ourselves a question: is it ever morally acceptable to do harm to another person, or to put them into a position where harm might befall them?

I attended a health and safety briefing where the consultant (whom I’ll call Jim for convenience) told this story. Jim had been a sailor, and one day there was an accident and the clothes of one of his colleagues caught fire. The man was rushing about like a headless chicken, panic-stricken. Jim took a pole and struck the man across the shins. This got him on to the ground, where they were able to cover him with a blanket and smother the flames. Unfortunately both his legs were broken. Was Jim’s act of breaking the man’s legs immoral?

There was a case recently in England where three burglars broke into a house, and the householder shot and injured two of them with a legally-held shot-gun. Was his act immoral? The judge said no; he was quite within his rights to protect his family and his property.

Last year, American forces found Osama Bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan and killed him. Was their act immoral?

My parents lived through a world war, when young men from Britain and America were sent out in order to halt the abomination that was Hitler’s Third Reich. Was it an immoral act to send these men out to face the horrors of war and almost certain death?

Is it morally acceptable to do harm to someone in order to prevent greater harm being done either to themselves or to someone else? The obvious answer is “yes”.

Now, God sent Jesus to be crucified in order to save you and me from eternal punishment in hell. Was that an immoral act? One person suffered for a limited time to prevent multitudes from suffering for an unlimited time. That is not an immoral act. That is an act of mercy.

You say that it is immoral to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, even if the innocent one is willing to take the punishment. Actually, the God of the Bible would agree with you in most cases. There are two examples in the Bible of men being willing to bear eternal punishment in order that the people of Israel might be saved – Moses (Exodus 32:31-33) and Paul (Romans 9:1-5). However, the only person that God would allow to suffer and die, not only for Israel but for all mankind, was Jesus, because He was the only one who could possibly survive such an ordeal.

You say that God’s first principle of morality is care/harm. Actually God’s first principle is love – "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and you shall love your neighbour as yourself". Read Luke 10:25-37 to understand what Jesus means by that.