For Terry - So That it Will "Make Sense" (page 16)

bohm

Oh dear. you go round and round and wont confront the fundamental problem that when you insist on calling yahweh-the-God (do i have to keep doing this or do you think you can manage the fact the word "God" can have two meanings without going into an argument-per-definition?) your friend, mercifull, just and honest, you have somehow made a judgement of yahweh-the-Gods character. Yet when the rest of us try to judge yahweh-the-God based on stuff he has said, you fall upon us like a ton of rock and tell us only God can judge God, and we are not infinite, and blah blah blah.

Face it perry, you got two standards.

Perry

Oh dear. you go round and round and wont confront the fundamental problem that when you insist on calling yahweh-the-God (do i have to keep doing this or do you think you can manage the fact the word "God" can have two meanings without going into an argument-per-definition?)

I am using your definition above.

your friend, mercifull, just and honest, you have somehow made a judgement of yahweh-the-Gods character. Yet when the rest of us try to judge God based on stuff he has said, you fall upon us like a ton of rock and tell us only God can judge God, and we are not infinite, and blah blah blah.

bohm, your confusing the various meanings of the word "judgment" here. I'm not using this term as an indicator of God's right to establish right and wrong, that is beyond dispute using your definition, no? Through experience though, a person can establish (judge) the superiority of God's ways over their own.

Perhaps you could explain the differences between Yahweh and your God.....let's start there shall we?

bohm

Perry: "Through experience though, a person can establish (judge) the superiority of God's ways over their own."

Only experience (i take that as personal experience) or also through what is written in the bible?

Perry

Only experience (i take that as personal experience) or also through what is written in the bible?

the relational, experiential knowing I'm referring to is only known by walking with God, yes

bohm

Okay. So speaking of establishing if Yahweh-the-God is a good, honest and nice person, that can only happend by "walking" with him, and not reading in the scriptures what he has done, and evaluate him based on that? (like create man/kill babies in the flood/sacrefice jesus/etc).

Perry

Okay. So speaking of establishing if Yahweh-the-God is a good, honest and nice person, that can only happend by "walking" with him,

So we are back to Yahweh now? I though we were talking about your God there for a while.

and not reading in the scriptures what he has done, and evaluate him based on that? (like create man/kill babies in the flood/sacrefice jesus/etc).

Of course the bible can tell us many things about God; it is his revelation of himself to man. But that doesn't mean you get to challenge his notions of right and wrong, otherwise he wouldn't be God. Remember, your own definition and how we already established that he has the right to establish right and wrong?

I think you are not adhering to your own definition of God.

bohm

Perry wrote: "So we are back to Yahweh now? I though we were talking about your God there for a while."

Im talking about the character called Yahweh in the bible. There was a lot of confusion before because i called him "God" and you told me that God means he was good to; im just referring to the character who has supposedly done certain things (create the universe, etc.), not if he is good, evil, funny or whatever.

Of course the bible can tell us many things about God;

So the bible DO tell us something about his qualities, ie. if he is good or evil, if he is honest or not, etc.?

it is his revelation of himself to man. But that doesn't mean you get to challenge his notions of right and wrong, otherwise he wouldn't be God.

Why not? If you can read the bible and end up with certain conclusions regarding his character, that should be something everyone can do, right? Either it is possible to read the bible AND THEN say something about his character from what you have read, or its not. You cant have it both ways.

Remember, your own definition and how we already established that he has the right to establish right and wrong?

No i dont remember we established that. I certainly dont think God can judge arbitrary things "right" or "wrong" and that MAKE them right or wrong. God cant make pedophelia "good".

Perry

bohm,

Your post 1403 reads this:

Perry: OK, so using your definition: the creator owns everything and has the authority to establish right and wrong by virture of his nature as creator. But if he establishes what is wrong and refuses to punish wrong, that makes him an enabler of wrong doing does it not?

bohm: YES he would!

So USING YOUR OWN REASONING and definition of God, God tells us what is good and bad and does not write things in order for us to determine IF God is good or bad otherwise he ceases to be God. Get it now?

You cannot have it both ways.

Perry

A person cannot at the same time believe that there is a Supreme Law-Giver AND decide whether or not that Law-Giver is Just. Otherwise, he isn't Supreme is he? This is an impossibility.

It's the same statement as Good is not Good. Law is not Law. It's just gibberish nonsense.

bohm

I wrote yes to the fact that IF he establish something is wrong, and refuse to punish it, that would make him an enabler of wrong. No, i dont think the creator can wake up one morning and go "mmm. pedophilia? let me see. .. its going to be GOOD today", and that will make pedophilia good. I just cant wrap my head around that.

Sorry for the confusion.

For Terry - So That it Will "Make Sense"

Share this