Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one 168 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Burn

  If you already know the Christian God, it seems to me, then you can read it in.

  You don't have to read it in.

  Romans 1:18

  For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.

  Anyone who refuses to see Christ as the love of God revealed, has every reason to feel as hillary_step. It's not that they can't see the love of God in creation, it's that they refuse to.

  Rom 1:22

  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

  Rom 1:23

  and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.

  HS

  Now, perhaps you might explain why, when I suggested that what the creation 'evidenced' about 'God', was that he has a violent, amoral, deceitful personality and gave reasons for this reasoning, you countered by suggesting that I was confusing 'nature' with 'character', using Romans 1:20 to try to prove this.

  I still believe that this passage is dealing with God as creator of everything, not just what you see as bad. I see character as only a small part of Divine nature and was implying that there is much more. I asked what Burn did with this passage. I wasn't trying to prove anything to you. I asked you an honest question.

  Everything in this universe lives by the death of others. In order for the most minute creature to the largest to live; deceit, amorality, violence and sociopathy are the order of the hour.

  I guess if you see the eating of plants as evil. Not to mention the fact that many animals care for their young, or work as a group.

  I see God's love in people when they do something loving and selfless. Also I don't discount "puffy clouds and gorgeous sunsets". I don't mind saying I'm impressed by the beauty and order in nature.

  If you think I'm avoiding God's role in the creation of evil, you should have simply gone right to the point. I don't see it as a problem. God says He created it.

  Isa 45:7

  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things .

  You don't have to be evil, to create it.

  deceit, amorality, violence and sociopathy

  I would like to ask you how you account for these moral values in an atheist universe. If animals are just eating and trying to survive, deceit implies evil intent. Why or how would you characterize this as evil? How do you know what evil is?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things .

  Check the meaning of the word "rah" here DD. It doesn't mean moral evil.

  BTS
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Burn

  Check the meaning of the word "rah" here DD. It doesn't mean moral evil.

  You may get that by me, I don't think it matters much to hillary_step.

  You would have to admit that God created moral evil (sin) when he gave the law. You know, Don't eat of the tree. Giving the law, is a far step from committing sin.
• 

  hillary_step

  Deputy,

  You would have to admit that God created moral evil (sin) when he gave the law. You know, Don't eat of the tree. Giving the law, is a far step from committing sin.

  ...and yet you STILL have not answered the question. Narkissos is right, you are one slippery Christian. ;)

  Rather than trying to hide the issue behind irrelevant details, smoke-screening and appeals to emotion will not cut it here Deputy.Why not answer the question? Let me try again.

  Romans 1:20 indicates that enough of the PERSON of God can be recognized from his creation in order to justify adverse judgement against those who do not see the PERSON of God in his 'creation'.

  I am asking YOU what the fact that every creature from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal on this planet relies on the death of another in order to survive, i.e. survival of the fittest, the strong at the expense of the weak, tell YOU about God's PERSON? Should a person who concludes that God 'created' his visible universe in a manner that relied at its core on deceit, violence, poison and amorality be adversely judged for doing so?

  How many more times need I ask this question of you to get a straight answer?

  HS
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Burn

  Looking at it again, it could mean both

  Strongs

  From

  H7489 ; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]
• 

  Deputy Dog

  HS

  Rather than trying to hide the issue behind irrelevant details, smoke-screening and appeals to emotion will not cut it here Deputy.Why not answer the question? Let me try again.

  You're pretty "slippery" yourself. You like to put words in peoples mouths. It's not a valid question.

  Romans 1:20 indicates that enough of the PERSON of God can be recognized from his creation in order to justify adverse judgement against those who do not see the PERSON of God in his 'creation'.

  I would say : those who refuse to see all the Person of God.

  I am asking YOU what the fact that every creature from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal on this planet relies on the death of another in order to survive, i.e. survival of the fittest, the strong at the expense of the weak, tell YOU about God's PERSON? Should a person who concludes that God 'created' his visible universe in a manner that relied at its core on deceit, violence, poison and amorality be adversely judged for doing so?

  As I have said, you seem to be able to see the wrath of God quite well. I would not characterize it quite the same way.

  deceit, violence, poison and amorality

  These are your words not mine, s o your question is mute. I don't see it that way.

  How many more times need I ask this question of you to get a straight answer?

  Why don't you try to ask God that question?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  deceit, violence, poison and amorality

  HS has appeared to reject a teleological view of reality on this board, but his own language is loaded with ontological moral evaluation as I pointed out earlier with my "evil stone" example. How can existance have any moral quality and remain bereft of immanence, transendence, purpose?

  He can't seem to shake those theist memes, can he?

  BTS
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Burn

  Yea, He likes to avoid questions as well

  deceit, amorality, violence and sociopathy

  I would like to ask you how you account for these moral values in an atheist universe. If animals are just eating and trying to survive, deceit implies evil intent. Why or how would you characterize this as evil? How do you know what evil is?
• 

  hamilcarr

  I would like to ask you how you account for these moral values in an atheist universe. If animals are just eating and trying to survive, deceit implies evil intent. Why or how would you characterize this as evil? How do you know what evil is?

  What the heck is an atheist universe? A universe that consists of billions of theists can hardly be called atheist.

  On the evolution of morality, The Moral Instinct by Pinker.
• 

  Narkissos

  It doesn't take a believer in teleology to point out teleological apories in a teleological system...