tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post443105461231064145..comments2023-10-29T07:41:51.540-07:00Comments on Stranger in a Strange Land: The Immorality of "Letting" an Innocent Person Take Your Punishmentstranger.strange.landhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-52480400759868997312010-07-14T12:39:41.914-07:002010-07-14T12:39:41.914-07:00Hi Penn,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to ...Hi Penn,<br /><br />Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. We have guests and things have been busy. That's great that you've been in the Dominican Republic doing evangelizing.<br /><br />I'm just going to reply quickly to something you've said. First, I'm glad that you think that my question presents a false dichotomy. I agree, but I wasn't sure if Calvinists do, because it often sounds as if they believe that God picked certain people and passed over others. Of course that is inconsistent with 1 Timothy 2:4, and if we ignore certain passages, we are indeed cherry picking like photosynthesis said.<br /><br /><i>But even with all those natural factors, we could still say that God had predestined all of it to take place and to save those who were converted by His grace. That is Biblical to say, because of Ephesians 1:11, "[In Him] also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will" (NAS).</i><br /><br />I do not consider the Spirit-filled preaching and the prayers to be "natural factors." That is how God works to reach as many people as possible. It is His will that we do the same today.<br /><br />I'll elaborate later, but I just didn't want to take too long to get back to you. <br /><br />God bless you too!Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-89384257147825747872010-07-14T07:09:40.320-07:002010-07-14T07:09:40.320-07:00@Penn Thomassetti
I have re-posted your comment o...@Penn Thomassetti<br /><br />I have re-posted your comment on the "A Question About Calvinism" thread.<br /><br /><i>Craig</i>stranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-63361399002325382112010-07-12T19:47:38.389-07:002010-07-12T19:47:38.389-07:00Anette,
I'm sorry, I have been away in the Do...Anette,<br /><br />I'm sorry, I have been away in the Dominican Republic for a week doing evangelism. I did not check my email until I returned on Saturday, and just now had a little time to respond. I hope my reply is helpful.<br /><br />You said...<br /> <i>"I have a question for you and Penn about Calvinism...<br /><br /> During the Great Awakening when George Whitefield and John Wesley preached, many people were saved. Whitefield and Wesley apparently prayed for several hours each day and were very much led by the Holy Spirit while preaching.<br /><br /> This is my question: Were the conversions due to the prayers and Spirit-led preaching, or were there just a disproportionate number of "elect" during that time? That is, did God just choose to soften hearts while these two preached, whereas now He is more inclined to harden hearts when the Gospel is preached? Or is there a correlation between prayer/Spirit-filled preaching and conversions?"</i><br /><br /> First let me say, I agree with you about Christian disagreement. We need to be understanding of one another, which is why I appreciate your question. To get your question correct, allow me to try to rephrase it so I understand rightly: Did people convert under the preaching of Wesley and Whitefield because of Spirit-led prayer and preaching? Or were there simply more people elected to be saved during their ministries?<br /><br /> First, allow me to point out that your question presents a false dichotomy. You seem to be assuming that it was either/or the prayers and preaching of men, or God's Sovereign choice. Then after that you seem to be assuming that more people were being saved at that time than are now. Personally, I do not see as many conversions today as were reported at that time, but I believe that your question already assumes that it has to be either/or in this case.<br /><br /> To me, it seems that people had been prepared for years before the preaching of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and John Wesley. They were taught many things from the Bible that are not taught today. Even their society was much more "christianized" than it is today and certainly had more knowledge of the basic truths that the gospel is based on than people do today. Also, the preaching of those men was far different than the way pastors and evangelists preach today. They had a practice of speaking powerfully in ways people seem to have lost or not yet re-learned. They also took many truths, such as judgment and sin, very seriously and spent a lot of time talking about them before pointing people to the answer. They were specially gifted by the Holy Spirit to preach. People in those days were also available to hear that kind of preaching when it came to their streets and countrysides. But even with all those natural factors, we could still say that God had predestined all of it to take place and to save those who were converted by His grace. That is Biblical to say, because of Ephesians 1:11, "[In Him] also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will" (NAS).<br /><br /> Biblically, God commands prayer, preaching and repentance, yet He works out those activities by His Spirit and makes them effectual. He has also predetermined all things, according to Scripture. God predetermined the cross of Christ before creating the world. He predetermined that Christ would die for sinners and save many. In the same manner, we can believe that God also predetermined the use of prayer and powerful preaching to save people in the days of Wesley and Whitefield, as well as today.<br /><br />I think it is important for us to always keep in mind two things: 1) that we are creatures and God is the Creator, and 2) that we do not in the least way deserve His grace, yet it is by His own plan and will that He chose to save us for His glory through Christ. I believe those two points will help us put the other questions in perspective.<br /><br />God bless you, Anette!Penn Tomassettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04426113620189406498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-58086938200717131752010-07-11T23:08:25.468-07:002010-07-11T23:08:25.468-07:00Craig,
I think it's a good one to keep in min...Craig,<br /><br />I think it's a good one to keep in mind on Atheist Central, too. (I thought about posting it there.) <br /><br />You're right that people disagree often, but I have to disagree with photosynthesis that it's "the beauty of human nature" for people to like each other anyway. It is human nature is to be suspicious of those who think differently. (I think he has been away from AC for too long to remember.) The fact that you are still friends just means that you are both caring and likable people.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-86925349578916007842010-07-11T19:53:39.843-07:002010-07-11T19:53:39.843-07:00Anette
(I saw your comment just after I posted mi...Anette<br /><br />(I saw your comment just after I posted mine to G.E.)<br /><br />I like that quote from Wesley. <br /><br />Francis Schaeffer wrote a pamphlet titled <i><b>The Final Apologetic</b></i>, which captured the same spirit. It was based on John 13:35, <b>"By this shall all <i>men</i> know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another."</b><br /><br />Schaeffer later included "The Final Apologetic" as an appendix to the books he wrote.<br /><br />That, and Wesley's quote are worth keeping in mind when addressing brothers and sisters with whom we disagree. And, let's face it, that is often.<br /><br />In Christ's care,<br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-4295474948581783242010-07-11T19:07:14.883-07:002010-07-11T19:07:14.883-07:00"Well, that is the beauty of our human nature...<i>"Well, that is the beauty of our human nature. I like you too despite I despise your beliefs. Isn't that something?"</i><br /><br />Aawww. I thought it was my beliefs that made me such a likeable guy. <b>;^)</b><br /><br />Interesting conclusion, G.E., about Christians having different interpretations of the bible. I will make that the topic of a blog-post. <br /><br />Meanwhile, my answer to Anette's question about Calvinism is scheduled to post tomorrow morning at 6:00 a.m. p.d.t.<br /><br />(Yes, I know my saying both "morning" and "a.m." constitutes a redundancy, sort of like the guy who wears suspenders AND a belt.)<br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-32945273367926205092010-07-11T18:58:29.197-07:002010-07-11T18:58:29.197-07:00Photosynthesis,
Actually, I'm not far from Ca...Photosynthesis,<br /><br />Actually, I'm not far from Calvinism, because of the focus on God's grace. Many of my favorite authors were Reformed, but they did not teach hard determinism. George Whitefield was a Calvinist and John Wesley was an Arminian, and I probably agree with them equally. And I fully agree with Wesley in what he said about disagreements between Christians (and anyone, for that matter):<br /><br /><i>Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way<br /><br />Nay, perhaps, if you are angry, so shall I be too; and then there will be small hopes of finding the truth. If once anger arises . . . this smoke will so dim the eyes of my soul, that I shall be able to see nothing clearly. For God’s sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful light, would it not be a loss rather than gain? For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!</i><br /><br />In other words, none of us come close to understanding everything about a God who says, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9). But if His love is real in our lives, then we get it anyway (1 John 4:7-8). It's really very simple. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6).Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-8844280063643869242010-07-10T14:03:45.611-07:002010-07-10T14:03:45.611-07:00Hey Craig,
Well, that is the beauty of our human ...Hey Craig,<br /><br />Well, that is the beauty of our human nature. I like you too despite I despise your beliefs. Isn't that something?<br /><br />----<br /><br />Anette my other dear friend,<br /><br />If Christians disagree on interpretations of the Bible, then it cannot be inerrant, nor can it be the word of an omnipotent God. Ease for translation, ease for understanding, would be a signature of inerracy of am omnipotent god.<br /><br />The disagreement between Calvinists and you Anette is dependent on which passages have been cherry-picked by each group, and how each group has decided to interpret such passages while ignoring the rest (passages that literally contradict their doctrine).<br /><br />Science and nature have a different relationship. Our disagreements cannot change nature's reality, sure. But nature is not supposed to be the inerrant anything of anything else. Nor is it supposed to have the message of an omnipotent being. We work with what we have.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-72519434560418599352010-07-08T10:27:31.625-07:002010-07-08T10:27:31.625-07:00Thanks, Craig. I look forward to reading it.
P.S....Thanks, Craig. I look forward to reading it.<br /><br />P.S. to atheists: The fact that Christians disagree on interpretations of the Bible says nothing about its inerrancy, just like disagreements between scientists do not affect the laws of nature. <br /><br />Theology can be hard to understand because it pertains to theoretical <i>why</i> questions. But the Bible is very clear and simple about what we are supposed to <i>do.</i> For example, we all agree that we are to pray and share the Gospel, but we may not understand or agree on exactly why this is necessary, and if and to what extent it affects God's will. But when we discuss those things, we come to understand them better.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-49747930229752719272010-07-08T09:26:32.754-07:002010-07-08T09:26:32.754-07:00Thank you Anette.
Good questions. I will answer o...Thank you Anette.<br /><br />Good questions. I will answer on my next blog post. I have informed Penn by email.<br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-78258178395649712302010-07-07T19:40:26.044-07:002010-07-07T19:40:26.044-07:00Craig,
I hope all is well and that the shaking ha...Craig,<br /><br />I hope all is well and that the shaking has stopped! :)<br /><br />I have a question for you and Penn about Calvinism that I asked the Calvinist commenters on John Piper's blog about a year ago and never got an answer. (As I think I've mentioned to you, I agree with the Calvinistic emphasis on God's grace but not the determinism.)<br /><br />During the Great Awakening when George Whitefield and John Wesley preached, many people were saved. Whitefield and Wesley apparently prayed for several hours each day and were very much led by the Holy Spirit while preaching. <br /><br />This is my question: Were the conversions due to the prayers and Spirit-led preaching, or were there just a disproportionate number of "elect" during that time? That is, did God just <i>choose</i> to soften hearts while these two preached, whereas now He is more inclined to harden hearts when the Gospel is preached? Or is there a correlation between prayer/Spirit-filled preaching and conversions?<br /><br />The question occurred to me because you said that you have no idea who is elect and who is not. Of course this is true to both Calvinists and Arminians--photosynthesis could be the next Augustine for all we know. But apart from the fact that God is omniscient and has always known who will ultimately be saved, is it carved in stone? We know that Augustine's mother Monica prayed for him far more than most mothers pray for their children, so in my mind that had a lot to do with him being saved. "God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). <br /><br />Even after I read Piper's blog for several months (and reading <i>Future Grace</i>) it was not at all clear to me what the Calvinistic position is on this question, so I'd be interested in your thoughts. I don't want to interfere with your conversation with photosynthesis et al, so feel free to reply elsewhere on your blog--just let me know where you've posted your reply. (I'd also like Penn's thoughts if he's still reading this.)Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-27845404946941088672010-07-07T17:36:06.158-07:002010-07-07T17:36:06.158-07:00photosynthesis said...
My friend Craig,
You did ...<i>photosynthesis said... <br />My friend Craig,<br /><br />You did not answer anything. Of course your god could not be anything but "sovereign" since nobody could oppose his will.</i><br /><br />@ G.E. my very good friend.<br /><br />I didn't answer anything? Hmmm. I selected two issues from your comment where I thought your understanding was a little off, and tried to clarify. As far as your <i>"To you, whatever your god says is moral,"</i> Well, yes. I believe that. We even sing a hymn in church called "Whate'er our God ordains is right."<br /><br />I guess we have come, or are coming more and more, to love and trust him, even about the things that we don't know all the details of, like our future and his wisdom in dealing with people.<br /><br />By the way, just before the earthquake hit, a little while ago, I re-read all the comments so far to see if anything escaped me. Penn Thomasetti and I seem to see things the same way, but guess what. I still like you anyway :D<br /><br />As far as God's love is concerned, to me it is clear that when he takes the likes of those who are his enemies and not only saves them from a miserable fate, but actually brings them into his family, THAT is love beyond anything I can imagine.<br /><br />By the way, I am a Calvinistic in my understanding of the plan of salvation, but I have no idea who is elect and who is not. So from my limited vantage point, anyone is potentially a saint. So, Watch out.<b>; )</b><br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-84949919018623957252010-07-07T17:02:11.301-07:002010-07-07T17:02:11.301-07:00Woah!! Earthquake. Felt pretty strong here. Rocked...Woah!! Earthquake. Felt pretty strong here. Rocked for about 45 secs after the initial jolt.stranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-7471437747074570562010-07-07T14:05:34.255-07:002010-07-07T14:05:34.255-07:00In the fall, mankind has decided to determine for ...<b>In the fall, mankind has decided to determine for himself what is right and wrong, good and evil, apart from and even in opposition to what God says.</b><br /><br /><br />You said that so much better than my efforts at it.Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-25941971142250552322010-07-07T13:58:19.002-07:002010-07-07T13:58:19.002-07:00My friend Craig,
You did not answer anything. Of ...My friend Craig,<br /><br />You did not answer anything. Of course your god could not be anything but "sovereign" since nobody could oppose his will.<br /><br />As for perfect justice and perfect love. Well, if the very definition of love depends on your god, then, it is meaningless, whatever god did would be perfect love. Same for justice. Thus, your theology means that your god would be all of that by definition, not as an attribute you can establish outside of your god.<br /><br />In other words, you have no difference to other Calvinists I might have had in mind. All Calvinist like using words like perfect this and perfect that for their god, and all of them make these words useless because their god is "sovereign" and the "standard" over the whole thing.<br /><br />Whether obeying would have been easy to Adam and Eve (if you believe those), it would still have been your god's plan to make a fragile creation that would become a mess (fall) at the first sin, thus condemning lots and lots of humans to be sin-prone and Hell-bound. You call this a divine, just, loving, and sovereign plan, coming out of your god's character (not capricious ). But, to you, so would have been any plan.<br /><br />This is why I say that if Calvinists stopped using those words that your own beliefs render to be meaningless, then your belief would be much more consistent. "God is sovereign" should be all you claim. Justice, love, perfect plan, are useless and meaningless.<br /><br />Finally, when I said "whatever your god did." I know you think your god acts according to his character, which, to you, is not capricious. That does not change that no matter what such character could have been, you would use the exact same words to describe your god.<br /><br />I could not call that perfect love and perfect justice. I could call that sovereign though. But I would not be able to worship such a monster.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-54900383628392498612010-07-07T13:48:38.755-07:002010-07-07T13:48:38.755-07:00SiaSL, if it's moral to allow an innocent pers...<i>SiaSL, if it's moral to allow an innocent person pay the debts of a convicted criminal, why isn't this general principle encoded in our justice systems?</i><br /><br />I believe that it is ligitimate for evangelists, like Ray Comfort, to use the court-room scenario in <b>illustrating</b> one person paying a fine that another cannot possibly pay. That is about as far as the analogy can take us, though. <br /><br />In the sinner's case, the debt we have incurred is the eternal wrath of God. Jesus was the only one qualified to mediate for us in that case.<br /><br />We couldn't satisfy the "debt" ourselves because we increase our guilt every day.<br /><br />Only someone with the same human nature as us sinners could satisfy justice on our behalf, but one who is himself a sinner can not satisfy for others.<br /><br />The mediator must also be true God, for only someone with the power of God could bear in his humanity the eternal wrath of the Father and obtain righteousness and life for us.<br /><br />So, in our justice systems, a monitary fine can indeed be paid by a benefactor, but our debt to God is such that money, or even the sacrifice of lambs, bulls and goats can't satisfy it. Well, there <b>is</b> one Lamb that can. <b>: )</b><br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-74648174557142272932010-07-07T13:22:47.002-07:002010-07-07T13:22:47.002-07:00Whateverman said...
SiaSL, if it's moral to ...<b>Whateverman</b> said... <br /><br /><i>SiaSL, if it's moral to allow an innocent person pay the debts of a convicted criminal, why isn't this general principle encoded in our justice systems?<br /><br />Yes yes, I know that God's morality is perfect, but you seem to be doing more than saying "It's moral because God says so, and we must accept it regardless of how we feel about the issue". You seem to be trying to appeal to logic and reason when explaining the morality of penal substitution.<br /><br />According to your religion, logic and reason are mute, ineffective and absolutely irrelevant when it comes to determining whether something is moral or not. If God says "X is good", then "X is good", even if logic & reason suggest otherwise.<br /><br />So, my question to you is this: <b>why do you appeal to logic and reason when justifying penal substitution?</b></i><br /><br />Hey WEM,<br /><br />Why do I appeal to logic and reason when "justifying penal substition?" Easy. Because the authors of the New Testament epistles use logic and reason in teaching the doctrine of Jesus Christ's atonement.<br /><br /><i>"According to your religion, logic and reason are mute, ineffective and absolutely irrelevant when it comes to determining whether something is moral or not."</i><br /><br />Not exactly. According to my religion our faculties of logic and reason have been affected by sin, but not rendered mute. In the fall, mankind has decided to determine for himself what is right and wrong, good and evil, apart from and even in opposition to what God says. (That is what the "eating of the fruit" was all about.) All men are still "image bearers" of God and as such retain the ability to use their minds. The problem is that sin has made us self-centered rather than God-centered in our thinking, and we don't have God's glory as our aim. <br /><br />Now, in the preaching of the gospel, the appeal to Christ's substitutionary atonement is effective on those whose hearts God has opened to receive that appeal. They are the ones whose guilty consciences have been awakened by the preaching of the Law. They then see themselves as they are in God's sight, immoral men and women. When that has sunk in, hearing that Christ was crucified for them becomes the most desirable good news they could ever have imagined.<br /><br />WEM, I have just briefly described how conversion works. Heard all that before? Or have I shed light on an aspect you may have not previously fully considered?<br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-26765908009537168962010-07-07T12:10:15.078-07:002010-07-07T12:10:15.078-07:00Photosynthesis said...
Not just having someone els...Photosynthesis said...<br /><i>Not just having someone else paying for my wrong-doings, but the whole whole whole thing from the very moment of creating beings with a sinful nature, or make a creation of such a fragile nature that it was enough for one, or two, to sin to make the whole theater fall into a sinful nature. Come on. It is immoral from starters. Remember that this god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, which makes it too much worse. Not only he decided to make such a fragile creation, he made it knowing the consequences of creating that way.</i><br /><br />Hey G.E.<br />This conversation began with my reply to <b>Wait What</b> (on Ray's blog) where I thought that his theology needed a bit of a "tweaking." Now I think I need to tweak yours (your theology, that is)<b>; )</b>.<br /><br />We believe and teach that God's sovereignty is absolute, and extends over everything that happens, including Satan's temptation and mankind's willful plunge into sin and rebellion against God's authority. For man, as originally created, living perfectly in accordance with God's will should have been as easy as breathing or the blinking of the eyes. <br /><br />The final chapter of the book of redemptive history (the Bible) gives us a glimpse of what God intended from the beginning.(Rev. 21 & 22) All of mankind's rebellion and hell's opposition through history not only did not thwart God's designed end, but God used them in bringing about that end. <br /><br /><i>You cannot deny it Craig, you are a Calvinist. From where I stand, that very fact, that whatever your god decides is moral, is absurdly immoral. Among Christians, Calvinists are the ones closest to a coherent belief. You don't claim that your god is good, but that he is the one who rules, and no way around. That is that. If you got rid of the concept of your god loving us, and exchange it to "decided to save whichever he pleased," he makes the rules. Then it would be even more coherent. Why would someone worship such a monster is beyond me.</i><br /><br />We need to remember that God's decisions are not spurious, but are according to His own character. He is, in His personal attributes, both pure justice and pure love. Calvinists don't pit one doctrine against another. That's what we don't do. We worship God for both of those attributes, as well as everything else that He is. <br /><br />Jonathat Edwards, a Calvinist if ever there was one, wrote and preached a sermon titled: "Heaven, a World of Love." Those lop-sided, sour-puss Calvinists that you are perhaps thinking of, should read that sermon and appreciate God's wonderful love.<br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-32995753244734369232010-07-04T08:43:46.555-07:002010-07-04T08:43:46.555-07:00Anette!
Great to read you too. Sorry that you had...Anette!<br /><br />Great to read you too. Sorry that you had to see my rather violent answer to Penn. He deserved it though.<br /><br />You would never ever drive me away. It was the intoxication thing that I told you about before. Enough is enough.<br /><br />Have a great celebration!<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-36224610485049858452010-07-04T05:39:59.057-07:002010-07-04T05:39:59.057-07:00Craig, thank you for posting your conversation her...Craig, thank you for posting your conversation here. I enjoyed reading it (as well as the comments that followed).<br /><br />BeamStalk, congratulations of the birth of your son! <br /><br />Photosynthesis, it's great to see a comment by you. You disappeared from the face of the earth after our last conversation, so I was wondering if I had driven you away. :)<br /><br />Happy 4th everyone!Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-34563031573837116672010-07-03T17:25:30.068-07:002010-07-03T17:25:30.068-07:00My now dear friend Shutterbug,
Words, words, and ...My now dear friend Shutterbug,<br /><br /><i>Words, words, and more words. :)</i><br /><br />I knew there was something truly good about you. :-)<br /><br />---<br /><br />Now you are almost there!<br /><br /><i>I don't like lies and theft - against me - because it is harmful for various reasons, none of which are just because God said they are wrong.</i><br /><br />Aaaaaaaahhhhhh! So you <b>know</b> that your god would not have gotten those out of the blue, right? Now all you have to do is build from this point. Thanks! You are the most excellent student.<br /><br />What I don't understand is why, since you got it, you continued as if you didn't. Just a few excerpts:<br /><br /><i>so why would stealing from you bother you?</i><br /><br />You answered that above yourself.<br /><br /><i>Where did man get that theft, in and of itself, is wrong?</i><br /><br />Again, didn't you just answer that?<br /><br /><i>That's about all I've got on the subject of morals. I don't get your reasoning</i><br /><br />Yes you do.<br /><br /><i>and you hate mine :)</i><br /><br />Not completely. Here you advanced enormously.<br /><br />Best and enjoy the festivities (if you are in the USA), or, at the very least, enjoy your weekend.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-90220355441404206082010-07-03T16:15:09.475-07:002010-07-03T16:15:09.475-07:00Words, words, and more words. :)
I've given ...Words, words, and more words. :)<br /><br />I've given examples where perjury (lying)and stealing, etc. are against man's laws. I don't like lies and theft - against me - because it is harmful for various reasons, none of which are just because God said they are wrong. <br /><br /><br /><b>photosynthesis said... <br />shutterbug said..."If someone stole from you, you would not want to see them punished by a court of law?"<br /><br />Precisely. I would want them punished. But I don't need any god to want that. Do you?</b><br /><br />Why do YOU want them punished? Neither of you care about God's laws. Are your morals dictated by<br />man's laws? You don't care about God's laws so why would stealing from you bother you?<br /><br />Theft is against man's law. So in that sense, just like you I don't want anyone stealing my stuff. <br /><br />Where did man get that theft, in and of itself, is wrong? <br /><br />God's laws reveal the divine standard and as <i>believers</i> compare themselves against that standard they can accurately identify sin, which is the failure to meet the standard. <br /><br />That's about all I've got on the subject of morals. I don't get your reasoning and you hate mine :)Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-73209800953311894672010-07-03T14:27:49.281-07:002010-07-03T14:27:49.281-07:00Shutterbug,
Re-posted the part you seemed to miss...Shutterbug,<br /><br />Re-posted the part you seemed to miss and clarified (I hope):<br /><br />You confirm yet again that morals, from the (or your) Christian perspective, are nothing more than whatever the creator commands.<br /><br />Thus, according to your belief<br />lying is not wrong in itself. If somebody lies to you, it should not cause you any feelings, except because the liar is disobeying your god's command. (And/or the law of the land.)<br /><br />Thus, according to your belief stealing is not wrong in itself, and should not cause you any discomfort (when somebody steals from you), except because the stealer is disobeying your god's command. (And/or the law of the land.)<br /><br />According to your belief disobeying your god's command should not cause you any discomfort, except because, well, your god does not like it.<br /><br />Besides your god decided, out-of-the-blue that those things are bad/wrong, you will end up burning in hell if you don't comply, of course.<br /><br />Now that we are there, is burning in hell bad by itself, or that requires yous god's command to be bad too?<br /><br />Where are the limits to where you can decide by yourself that something is bad and/or wrong?<br /><br />If you see the nonsensical of all these, you can see that there must be something more objective than something being your god's command for it to be wrong. Otherwise, the whole theater is meaningless.<br /><br />If you see something objectively wrong with those, then you can <b>start</b> to understand where morals can come from other than your god.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-86787743969599456642010-07-03T12:44:03.811-07:002010-07-03T12:44:03.811-07:00"If someone stole from you, you would not wan..."If someone stole from you, you would not want to see them punished by a court of law?"<br /><br />Precisely. I would want them punished. But I don't need any god to want that. Do you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-51510982435405679052010-07-03T09:52:43.468-07:002010-07-03T09:52:43.468-07:00photosynthesis said...
I question both, the moral...photosynthesis said... <br /><b>I question both, the morals of the whole edifice of the biblical story, and the morals of those who believe it, accept it, and worship it.</b><br /><br />I don't worship the morals of the Bible. I live by them.<br /><br /><br /><b>You confirm yet again that morals, from the (or your) Christian perspective, are nothing more than whatever the creator commands.</b><br /><br />I will state outright and confirm that my morals come from God.<br /><br /><br /><b>Lying is not wrong in itself. If somebody lies to you, it should not cause you any feelings, except because the liar is disobeying your god's command.</b><br /><br />Perjury is against the law of the land, not just against God's laws.<br />You would lie in court and no one should care?<br /><br /><br /><b>Stealing is not wrong in itself, and should not cause you any discomfort (when somebody steals from you), except because the stealer is disobeying your god's command.</b><br /><br />Theft is also against the law of the land. If someone stole from you, you would not want to see them<br />punished by a court of law?<br /><br /><b>Disobeying your god's command should not cause you any discomfort, except because, well, your god does not like it.</b><br /><br />But as a Christian, it would and it should. He also tells us to obey the laws of the government.<br /><br /><b>Add that for those things you might burn in hell, of course. But now that we are there, is burning in hell bad by itself, or that requires yous god's command too?<br /><br />Where are the limits?</b><br /><br />Ten Commandments - not a very big list to obey. Ten is a limit.<br /><br /><br /><b>If you see the nonsensical of all these, you can see that there must be something more objective than something being your god's command for it to be wrong. Otherwise, the whole theater is meaningless.</b><br /><br /><br />I don't see the nonsense at all. If God is a holy God and requires obedience in order to not only live a good life, but spend eternity with Him, what is so heavy about the ten commandments? Some of them are even adopted by our governments, which you live under ever day. Do you hate the idea of the laws of our land too? Maybe you do, but you have to live by them regardless of your feelings.<br /><br /><b>...is burning in hell bad by itself...</b><br /><br />It would be to me.<br /><br /><b>If you see something objectively wrong with those, then you can start to understand where morals can come from other than your god.</b><br /><br /><br />No, I don't see this at all. I'm afraid you would need to answer my question after all...where do your morals come from?Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.com