Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What does God aim at maximizing?

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 8:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There is no new God information since the 1st century. There is no information to base this topic on.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:47:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dammit guys! I was looking forward to the rare quadruple bump.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:17:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

There is a certain irony in objecting to the expectation of God maximizing anything as anthropomorphic when the being its self is presented by some as having o so many similarities with human behaviors.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:12:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

By a majority of Christians definitions and explanations of past behaviors of God, God gave a rule set that promised eternal happiness. Seeing how it is the rule set is deeply hidden and susceptible gross misinterpretation as seen by the deviation of Christian sects, most Christians will not be able to make it to "heaven". As one who was created in the image of God, one would have to conclude that earth is merely a social experiment.

If he wanted people to have a true chance of eternal bliss he would have:
1. Never put the tree of life in Eden.
2. Stopped the serpent (devil if you will) from entering Eden.
3. Never even created a tree that enabled a human to know right from wrong.
4. Understood a creature that does not know right from wrong would have absolutely no understanding of the instructions of not eating from the tree of life and would be completely susceptible to any persuasion of eating it from.
5. Use better psychology techniques to incent the right behaviors. He is using the equivalent of telling people to not smoke because they will get lung cancer. That is not what gets people to not smoke. Made in his image, one would think he understands this.

This is just a start of the list. Fundamentally any entity that creates a moral standard and sets up those required to follow it or suffer eternal punishment for failure is immoral. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that and anyone who wants to spend eternity with an immoral entity is immoral.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 9:27:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:29:31 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Maximizing fearful love to glorify his ego

You're obviously too emtionally compromised to have an intellectual conversation regarding this topic.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 9:32:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:29:31 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Maximizing fearful love to glorify his efo.

1 john 4:18
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 10:27:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:17:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

There is a certain irony in objecting to the expectation of God maximizing anything as anthropomorphic when the being its self is presented by some as having o so many similarities with human behaviors.

I'm sorry but the conclusion doesn't follow.

1) God is anthropomorphically presented by many people.
2) Therefore, we ought not doubt that God aims at maximizing things in an anthropomorphic sense.

... First, the whole objection is a non-sequitar. I'm suggesting the idea that God just creates good things. Second, just because people naturally personify things in what they're used to as a human, doesn't mean that God is to be analogous to humans. Analogies are helpful, that's why theists use them, but philosophers know that analogies ultimately fail- hence "argument from analogy" being fallacious.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:12:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

By a majority of Christians definitions and explanations of past behaviors of God, God gave a rule set that promised eternal happiness. Seeing how it is the rule set is deeply hidden and susceptible to gross misinterpretation as seen by the deviation of Christian sects, most Christians will not be able to make it to "heaven". As one who was created in the image of God, one would have to conclude that earth is merely a social experiment.

If he wanted people to have a true chance of eternal bliss he would have:
1. Never put the tree of life in Eden.
2. Stopped the serpent (devil if you will) from entering Eden.
3. Never even created a tree that enabled a human to know right from wrong.
4. Understood a creature that does not know right from wrong would have absolutely no understanding of the instructions of not eating from the tree of life and would be completely susceptible to any persuasion of eating it from.
5. Use better psychology techniques to incent the right behaviors. He is using the equivalent of telling people to not smoke because they will get lung cancer. That is not what gets people to not smoke. Made in his image, one would think he understands this.

This is just a start of the list. Fundamentally any entity that creates a moral standard and sets up those required to follow it or suffer eternal punishment for failure is immoral. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that and anyone who wants to spend eternity with an immoral entity is immoral.

First, I don't see how this answers my question. Second, I don't think the conclusion that the Earth was intended as a social experiment follows from man's fall away from moral living.

Further, the mosaic law doens't at all seem to be deeply hidden and susceptible to gross misinterpretation... haven't you read the ten commandments? Even if they were, the Bible affirms that God's moral standard is 'written on the hearts of all (so that all are without excuse' ... Then God (revealed in Christ) bestowed the fruit of the Holy Spirit who can live through us (because of what Christ did for us), against such fruit Christ says "there is no law."

So yes, though God's standard doesn't lower or comprmise, nevertheless God's grace is given through Christ to enable us to reach that standard.

Then you presume to know what it takes to have a real "chance of eternal bliss." Which, I'm sorry to say, has to be the sloppiest Theodicy I've seen.

For #1-4, why think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is literal and not metaphorical to mean something along the lines of 'the knowledge of the freedom to live another way apart from what God intended?'

To me it's just obvious Gen.1-2 are to be taken as allegorical & not literal, and that's an internal exegesis, which isn't a retreat from the externals of modern science; since St. Augustine, Philo, etc all took the non-literalist approach here ~1500 years before Darwin or Lyell.

But then we've good evidence in science to disconfirm the literal interpretation over the non-literal one. So why think we're forced to adopt the notion that the tree was a literal tree that God planted to 'experiment'? ... Indeed why would an all-knower even NEED to experiment? It simply makes no sense!

So I'm sorry I just can't take that view serious. Nor can I take serious the idea of a literal snake tempting Eve. Science seems to be getting our physical origins right, but Genesis said it better regarding our spiritual origins. So nothing about your theodicy remotely convinces me to ascribe to such a simplistic understanding.

For #5, any world in which there exist significantly free creatures (which by the way is a necessary condition for both giving and recieving love and enjoying bliss) such worlds are always, by definition, susceptible to a fall. But through the atonement, God is able to achieve a first fall only world with very little prospect of any future fall, given the cantus firmus of the knowledge of the sinful life compared to the 'other melodies' of a righteous life, and also given the more immediate experience of God's glory in full.

Then you ended with nothing more than a rant,

"Fundamentally any entity that creates a moral standard and sets up those required to follow it or suffer eternal punishment for failure is immoral. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that and anyone who wants to spend eternity with an immoral entity is immoral."

Here you presuppose that God just stood cool when a free mankind fell into immorality. However, the scripture teaches otherwise: Beginning with Israel and into the rest of the world, God enacted a plan of redemption for all who are willing to choose God's way of Divine true love, from which eternal bliss occurs.

I've no doubt that those who choose in their hearts to reject him will experience levels of happiness in hell. However it's all about how one goes about acheiving that happiness, will they make a 'justly-seeking self forming choice'? Or will they make an unjustly -seeking self forming choice? The latter can only be enjoyed at the expense of others; and others at the expense of them, hence those in hell will always want to, and will always desire to, enjoy happiness in this way. This is why hell is barred shut not from the outside by God, but from the inside by those who choose to purue happiness in an unjust way, a way of diminishing returns and no restraint for the greater good.

However the those bound for or in Heaven, choose to pursue happiness in a just way, a commitment-based life where satifaction follows welcomed as a by product, not a satisfaction based life where commitment follows unwelcomed as a by-product. (The Holy Spirit living in fallible Christians always convicts them to repent and become Whole again if they move into sin, such a choice for repentence defeats sin by a virtuous response).

So by the very nature of the case, it would seem that those who choose to live a God-and-other-oriented life are the most moral! Not by their own works, but by the way God made available to them in order to become Whole again, as we were always meant to be.

If this is the case (which it seems to be a much more intellectually appealing theodicy than the one you offered), then we can do without your air of "anyone who doesn't agree with me is immoral" statement.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 11:16:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:
The number of people who come into a relationship with him in heaven?

That may be a proximate aim in leu of a fall, sure. But even so, I don't think God's interested in number anyway. I mean I so no reason to think that God aims to create in someone something good, which is everlasting. But that's on a local scale. There are many local individuals which comprise a global scale. Now to think God intends to do a good work on the global, as opposed to local, strikes me as anthropomorphicly economic.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not good at this. I don't know if my replies will show properly withing quoted text so put "SLO1:" in front of my response

First, I don't see how this answers my question.
Slo1: I didn't so much answer it, but my end conclusion more concisely is that God is not aiming to maximize the number of people who are admitted to heaven.

Second, I don't think the conclusion that the Earth was intended as a social experiment follows from man's fall away from moral living.

Further, the mosaic law doens't at all seem to be deeply hidden and susceptible to gross misinterpretation... haven't you read the ten commandments? Even if they were, the Bible affirms that God's moral standard is 'written on the hearts of all (so that all are without excuse' ... Then God (revealed in Christ) bestowed the fruit of the Holy Spirit who can live through us (because of what Christ did for us), against such fruit Christ says "there is no law."

Slo1: Even the 10 commandments are wrought with interpretation. Though shalt not kill is the standard to go by, but yet Christians have exceedingly different value judgements on life and thus conditions enabling a moral decision which results in the killing of life. The obvious are exceptions to abortion when the life of the mother in danger or justifying military actions and direct killing of soldiers and innocents to advance a cause, even as simple as defending oneself. Even the commandment to not take the lords name in vain is exceedingly complex or bearing false witness. It can be argued that many Christians who choose arguments such as knowing how end times are going to proceeded are bearing false witness.

So yes, though God's standard doesn't lower or comprmise, nevertheless God's grace is given through Christ to enable us to reach that standard.

Slo1: I have to admit I think this is very reasonable, but it requires self investigation and an ability to question anything and everything. Being involved in an institution can only interrupt true grace.

Then you presume to know what it takes to have a real "chance of eternal bliss." Which, I'm sorry to say, has to be the sloppiest Theodicy I've seen.

Slo1: I'm not certain what point I made that would imply a real chance of eternal bliss. What I can say the different brands of Christianity is so completely incompatible that is is impossible for one to fish through the "truth" and have good odds of selecting the right truth which will allow one in heaven

For #1-4, why think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is literal and not metaphorical to mean something along the lines of 'the knowledge of the freedom to live another way apart from what God intended?'

To me it's just obvious Gen.1-2 are to be taken as allegorical & not literal, and that's an internal exegesis, which isn't a retreat from the externals of modern science; since St. Augustine, Philo, etc all took the non-literalist approach here ~1500 years before Darwin or Lyell.

But then we've good evidence in science to disconfirm the literal interpretation over the non-literal one. So why think we're forced to adopt the notion that the tree was a literal tree that God planted to 'experiment'? ... Indeed why would an all-knower even NEED to experiment? It simply makes no sense!

Slo1: It is an important distinction to make whether one interprets literal or enables context. However, in this case God still created mankind and enabled free choice in as far as choice around making moral decisions. It still holds true that his aim at maximizing is not with maximizing the numbers that make it to heaven.

So I'm sorry I just can't take that view serious. Nor can I take serious the idea of a literal snake tempting Eve. Science seems to be getting our physical origins right, but Genesis said it better regarding our spiritual origins. So nothing about your theodicy remotely convinces me to ascribe to such a simplistic understanding.

For #5, any world in which there exist significantly free creatures (which by the way is a necessary condition for both giving and recieving love and enjoying bliss) such worlds are always, by definition, susceptible to a fall. But through the atonement, God is able to achieve a first fall only world with very little prospect of any future fall, given the cantus firmus of the knowledge of the sinful life compared to the 'other melodies' of a righteous life, and also given the more immediate experience of God's glory in full.

Then you ended with nothing more than a rant,


If this is the case (which it seems to be a much more intellectually appealing theodicy than the one you offered), then we can do without your air of "anyone who doesn't agree with me is immoral" statement.

Slo1: I agree it was a rant, but don't get upset. It was more of a logical conclusion to the stream of thought than a belief. I am completely open up to admitting I don't understand the mysteries of life, but I am extremely wary of anyone who says they do. (not that you do)

Back to it, if God is not aimed at maximizing those who are submitted to heaven, then then he is clearly more concerned with justice or ensuring those that are eligible deserve it.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:54:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 9:27:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 2:29:31 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Maximizing fearful love to glorify his ego

You're obviously too emtionally compromised to have an intellectual conversation regarding this topic.

Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Luke 12:4-5
I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

The apparent contradiction here is that we are told to both love and fear God, and yet 1 John says there is no fear in love. However, fear can mean two different things. The word "fear," according to Merriam-Webster, has two present-day usages:
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
1 Peter 2:17 and the verses listed next to it use "fear" in the first sense, as is evident from their context. For example, Psalm 33:8 says, "Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him." (And reverential awe, or profound respect, is compatible with love.) 1 John 4:18 uses "fear" in the second sense, as is also evident from context - punishment is something to be afraid of. Thus Christians are to love God and stand in awe of him, but not to be terrified of him.
A stronger case for contradiction can be made with Luke 12:5. Like 1 John 4:18, it's talking about fear of punishment, and thus is using "fear" in the same sense. However, looking at the message of both passages resolves the contradiction. In Luke, Jesus is telling "a crowd of many thousands" (Lk 12:1), which would have included both believers and non-believers, to fear God who has the ability to punish them in hell. John, apparently writing to believers, reminds them that because of God's love, "we will have confidence on the day of judgment." In other words, "perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." Those who love God and believe in him know that he loves them and can trust in him to save them. Thus unbelievers have reason to be afraid of God; believers are not to be afraid because of their trust in God's love (fear on the part of believers is a sign of doubt or inadequate knowledge of God - "the one who fears is not made perfect in love.").
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:03:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:51:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
Reason_Alliance wrote:

Not good at this. I don't know if my replies will show properly withing quoted text so put "SLO1:" in front of my response

You put colon marks to quote. Anyhow, I'm inclined to agree that God is not aiming to maximize the number of people who are admitted to heaven.

And it doesn't seem to me that anyone has exceedingly different value judgements on life let alone Christians in particular. How is not taking God's name in vain complex? Simply don't treat God as some chap... there, explained it in english for you haha.

These aren't complex in the least bit. Especially since we have such a standard written on our hearts. You know what's right and wrong, it's obvious! What is guilt? If such a code were so complex why do we feel guilt? WHy is it so obvious when we go contrary to what we know is in us? Your appeal to mystery here is a strange one I must admit. Obviously we can't know all of moral ontology but that's why God says in scripture He'll judge us according to what we DO know.

And Christian's who bear false witness (lie) will be judged by the same standard, fortunately for them there's redemption and forgiveness since they gave their lives over to God, they are, in effect, sinners in recovery. Have you ever seen a recovery group? Aren't those folks just as nasty as those still in sin? The difference is they're saved and can live with the prospect of getting better or improving. But it must start somewhere. Not to mention the fact that some folks claim to be Christian and aren't. Let's, for now on, not focus so much on the dirty rust buckets, but instead focus on the pure water that's supposed to fill them. Shall we? Otherwise we're arguing a cas par cas, which can be too involved for a forum.

Yes that thought that God's grace is given through Christ to enable us to reach his standard requires self investigation. For one I think we do this naturally and for two it's said in the scripture that the Holy Spirit convicts those and draws them closer thereby enabling a person to immediately experience, as a properly basic belief, what God will work on in their lives, and what to pray for, etc. The church of fellw believers are so very helpful in this regard, for we are social creatures, we need one another; again- sinners in recovery.

However, I don't think this entails a vicious moral skepticism of sorts that you mention, in fact quite the opposite! Once I became saved form myself it was ever more obvious the standard with which I need to rely on God's grace. The church helps this, have you ever been involved in the emotional healing of a church family? Far from interrupting true grace, it's been obvious to me that this is where the Lord works most- through his bride, the people of the church. I know there are a bunch of things that the church gets wrong, but I simply cannot throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. I've experienced too much good through the Spirit's work in the church.

As for sifting through the different 'brands' of theology, let me just say in the words of Anselm that "ours is a faith seeking understanding." Ultimately the way in which a person knows God is a knowledge by acquaintance, not by description, in the form of an immediate, personal experience. In this way the Christian experiences God as a properly basic belief, or what they call the witness of the Holy Spirit.

So though the different brands of the church may disagree on minuscule things like baptism, doctrine, etc, ultimately a person's relationship with God is on a one-to-one personal basis. I wouldn't treat the faith as a religion or a philosophy for living only. Though the church has a very rich intellectual history of such things, which to me is interesting to learn, nevertheless all Christian's will enjoy heaven, God and his creation forever, but will first enter in with some type of bad doctrine. (Though we know in part, then we shall see face to face). Christ said "I've not called you servants, I've called you friends. And there's no greater love than one who is willing to die for his friend." With this sort of unconditional, agape love, I don't think God would leave us to our own fallible ingenuity to work out the intellectual issues prior to knowing him through acquaintance.

You say that,

"God still created mankind and enabled free choice in as far as choice around making moral decisions. It still holds true that his aim at maximizing is not with maximizing the numbers that make it to heaven."

I'm inclined to agree with this (I think... I don't yet know what you mean by "in as far as choice around making moral decisions")! My theodicy (which can be found in my debate with UnitedAndy on the problem of evil), is actually compatible with this notion and indeed I think it's biblical. I think God brings good out of the bad in each individuals life if they come into relation with him. That doesn't mean Christians get nice cars, etc. I mean in an ultimate sense. God simply creates and sustains good things, regardless of how we use our freewill to mess it up.

I apologize if you think I was upset but I enjoy discussing these things. Imagine from now on that I have a smile on my face whence typing this out. Sorry if I made it seem I was upset however.

Anyway, you ask,

"if God is not aimed at maximizing those who are submitted to heaven, then he is clearly more concerned with justice or ensuring those that are eligible deserve it."

I'm somewhat inclined to agree here Slo1, but more than that I think God creates and sustains good things and does this in accordance with his nature or essence. God's essence is most just and so yes I would agree that part in parcel of the good world he created involves a context in which free creatures can will his way of living or their own.

God obviously knows his way of living is the most enjoyable in the end, it involves the law of accelerating returns (because it's a sacrificial other-oriented commitment based life). But those who choose their own way, God doesn't actively punish- he simply responds as a gentleman and grants them their wish to live a life which in the end involves the law of diminishing returns (a self-ceneterd based life, etc).

All the while God pleads with his creation not to choose such a path, he sends his son to die to make a way for us to choose such a path, he does everything that's possible. It's up to us to choose righteously.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:22:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:54:59 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/15/2012 9:27:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 2:29:31 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Maximizing fearful love to glorify his ego

You're obviously too emtionally compromised to have an intellectual conversation regarding this topic.

Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

What's egotistical about loving the greatest conceivable being? ... Do we not love Lady Gaga? We gave her an island! Do we not love and worship our athletes who can do some things? Those folks NEED their ego's filled. God doesn't. So why does he say to love him? ... Because if we love God first, the source of ALL love, then we can give an infinite amount of love to others. As Christ taught, love God and the second command is like unto the first, love others. A conduit of love, from the source- through you- to others.

Making the mistake of treating the idea of God as some chap will flaw every argument you throw at me WallStreet. I happen to define him as the Maximally Great being, r the qualitatively infinite reality. I also accept everything Christ said as his claims were vindicated upon being raised from the dead by that Maximally Great Being.

Luke 12:4-5
I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Try reading the the context. This is not talking about fear of a bully (friends in bold), but a reverential fear. Regard God's power to save you is what it's saying.

The apparent contradiction here is that we are told to both love and fear God, and yet 1 John says there is no fear in love. However, fear can mean two different things. The word "fear," according to Merriam-Webster, has two present-day usages:
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm

Yeah, don't be afraid of death because the power of God, of which you should regard in times of fear, can save you if you love him with all your heart, soul mind, etc. ... No contradiction there, right?

1 Peter 2:17 and the verses listed next to it use "fear" in the first sense, as is evident from their context. For example, Psalm 33:8 says, "Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him." (And reverential awe, or profound respect, is compatible with love.) 1 John 4:18 uses "fear" in the second sense, as is also evident from context - punishment is something to be afraid of. Thus Christians are to love God and stand in awe of him, but not to be terrified of him.

1John. 4:18 says,

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

No contradiction. But even if there were, this would call into question biblical inerrancy, not answer my question... you're arguing an irrelevant thing. Anyhow,

A stronger case for contradiction can be made with Luke 12:5. Like 1 John 4:18, it's talking about fear of punishment, and thus is using "fear" in the same sense.

Yeah, fear the one who has the power to bring about an eternity away from God, the source of all love and justice... I still see no apparent contradiction other than semantics... then you go on to show how, internally the contradiction was really never a contradiction. I tend to agree!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:25:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So then how is God here maximizing fear here in order to build his ego (like he needed to do that... he's God... it's God we're talking about) as opposed to convincing those to choose a way of Divine love in order to experience ans enjoy God and his creation forever in a just way, God's way?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 10:28:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 10:27:26 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:17:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

There is a certain irony in objecting to the expectation of God maximizing anything as anthropomorphic when the being its self is presented by some as having o so many similarities with human behaviors.

I'm sorry but the conclusion doesn't follow.

1) God is anthropomorphically presented by many people.
2) Therefore, we ought not doubt that God aims at maximizing things in an anthropomorphic sense.

... First, the whole objection is a non-sequitar. I'm suggesting the idea that God just creates good things. Second, just because people naturally personify things in what they're used to as a human, doesn't mean that God is to be analogous to humans. Analogies are helpful, that's why theists use them, but philosophers know that analogies ultimately fail- hence "argument from analogy" being fallacious.

My point is lost on you. God its self is open to the charge of being one big exercise in anthropomorphism.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 6:13:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 10:28:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/15/2012 10:27:26 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:17:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

There is a certain irony in objecting to the expectation of God maximizing anything as anthropomorphic when the being its self is presented by some as having o so many similarities with human behaviors.

I'm sorry but the conclusion doesn't follow.

1) God is anthropomorphically presented by many people.
2) Therefore, we ought not doubt that God aims at maximizing things in an anthropomorphic sense.

... First, the whole objection is a non-sequitar. I'm suggesting the idea that God just creates good things. Second, just because people naturally personify things in what they're used to as a human, doesn't mean that God is to be analogous to humans. Analogies are helpful, that's why theists use them, but philosophers know that analogies ultimately fail- hence "argument from analogy" being fallacious.

My point is lost on you. God its self is open to the charge of being one big exercise in anthropomorphism.

Haha! Oh I guess I just never heard such a genetic fallacy spoken before, I'm totally at a lost on how to think about it! Whatever will I do?! ;-)

....

Sure, yeah, go ahead and conspire that God, a necessary being, is very much like us, contingent beings and was created by us rather than gradually discovered by us. That's cool, it still doesn't answer my question however.

Grant that IF God exists, an an objective ground for reality apart from our conception of him, then would his nature be as anthropomorphic as in maximizing things on a global scale as opposed to local... is what I'm asking.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 6:43:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 6:13:06 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 10:28:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/15/2012 10:27:26 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:17:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

There is a certain irony in objecting to the expectation of God maximizing anything as anthropomorphic when the being its self is presented by some as having o so many similarities with human behaviors.

I'm sorry but the conclusion doesn't follow.

1) God is anthropomorphically presented by many people.
2) Therefore, we ought not doubt that God aims at maximizing things in an anthropomorphic sense.

... First, the whole objection is a non-sequitar. I'm suggesting the idea that God just creates good things. Second, just because people naturally personify things in what they're used to as a human, doesn't mean that God is to be analogous to humans. Analogies are helpful, that's why theists use them, but philosophers know that analogies ultimately fail- hence "argument from analogy" being fallacious.

My point is lost on you. God its self is open to the charge of being one big exercise in anthropomorphism.

Haha! Oh I guess I just never heard such a genetic fallacy spoken before, I'm totally at a lost on how to think about it! Whatever will I do?! ;-)

....

Sure, yeah, go ahead and conspire that God, a necessary being, is very much like us, contingent beings and was created by us rather than gradually discovered by us. That's cool, it still doesn't answer my question however.

Your kidding me right ? Lets take a certain religious book written a few thousands years ago, men, who were quite concerned about their daughters being virgin brides to get a high price/dowry ? . Hey and get this, God just happens to share this concern of virgin brides (I know right what a coincidence) and puts in a nice little incentive for women to remain virgins till marriage, something along the lines of if she ain't a virgin bride kill her.

So who exactly is conspiring to make a necessary being similar to humans ? If I am guilty of such a thing I can only wonder what you think about certain bible writers.

Grant that IF God exists, an an objective ground for reality apart from our conception of him, then would his nature be as anthropomorphic as in maximizing things on a global scale as opposed to local... is what I'm asking.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 7:30:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 6:43:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/16/2012 6:13:06 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 10:28:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/15/2012 10:27:26 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:17:42 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/13/2012 6:48:51 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I'm convincd that on a global scale God doesn't aim at maximizing anything, rather he simply creates and sustains good things.

The idea that God must aim at maximizing things is, I think, inherently anthropomorphic; particularly economic. Yet God as such is unlimited in time & resources! So why are we to think that God must aim at the maximization of things rather than just creating good things and sustaining good things?

There is a certain irony in objecting to the expectation of God maximizing anything as anthropomorphic when the being its self is presented by some as having o so many similarities with human behaviors.

I'm sorry but the conclusion doesn't follow.

1) God is anthropomorphically presented by many people.
2) Therefore, we ought not doubt that God aims at maximizing things in an anthropomorphic sense.

... First, the whole objection is a non-sequitar. I'm suggesting the idea that God just creates good things. Second, just because people naturally personify things in what they're used to as a human, doesn't mean that God is to be analogous to humans. Analogies are helpful, that's why theists use them, but philosophers know that analogies ultimately fail- hence "argument from analogy" being fallacious.

My point is lost on you. God its self is open to the charge of being one big exercise in anthropomorphism.

Haha! Oh I guess I just never heard such a genetic fallacy spoken before, I'm totally at a lost on how to think about it! Whatever will I do?! ;-)

....

Sure, yeah, go ahead and conspire that God, a necessary being, is very much like us, contingent beings and was created by us rather than gradually discovered by us. That's cool, it still doesn't answer my question however.

Your kidding me right ? Lets take a certain religious book written a few thousands years ago, men, who were quite concerned about their daughters being virgin brides to get a high price/dowry ? . Hey and get this, God just happens to share this concern of virgin brides (I know right what a coincidence) and puts in a nice little incentive for women to remain virgins till marriage, something along the lines of if she ain't a virgin bride kill her.

I'm not writing from the perspective of a religious book, that would be circular. I'm speaking from the view of natural theology & philosophy. Nevertheless you seem to be fixated on what the OT says about virgins, which most likely isn't exactly like the way you need it to be for your argument to go through. Have you any particular chapter or verse in mind, lest distressed readers miss the forest for the trees?

So who exactly is conspiring to make a necessary being similar to humans ? If I am guilty of such a thing I can only wonder what you think about certain bible writers.

Again with the big red herring of biblical innerancy. I'm not asking if God actually revealed himself through scripture, you're at step 27- I'm speaking more basically. Hence see my unengaged quote below:

Grant that IF God exists, an an objective ground for reality apart from our conception of him, then would his nature be as anthropomorphic as in maximizing things on a global scale as opposed to local... is what I'm asking.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 1:50:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.youtube.com...

Oh yeah and lets not forget all this:

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder.[1]

The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.[2] Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness.

To which includes:

Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.

We can see this being taught here:

* In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting :FIRE,. . ."

* Mark 16:15-16 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach :the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; :but he that believeth not shall be condemned to hell.

* Matthew 10:35-37 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his :father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her :mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that :loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son :or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

* Luke 14:26 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, :and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he :cannot be my disciple.

* Matthew 10:34 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I :have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

And to elaborate a bit more, we can take the first example and put it into further context:

* In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting :FIRE,. . ."

* "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he :will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and :he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from :the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 :Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my :Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 :For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I :was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was :sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the :righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed :you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and :welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in :prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you :did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the :eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you :gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and :you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and :you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we :see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not :minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you :did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will :go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

the context is about worshiping him. Hence not serving or caring about Jesus = eternal punishment.. the purpose of these stories. They are to make you feel guilty for not serving Jesus, and if you don't, you will be cast into eternal damnation. This is essentially about separating believers and non-believers. Hence, sheep from goats! And if you understand the sheep and goats it about the flock vs those of other religions (Pagan) to which their deity's are depicted as goat like.

It's a war or religious beliefs and control in the region.. This to which allows you to actually understand other areas of the bible such as below as anyone not of the religious faith are wicked evil Goats in need to slaughter.. The bible is very subliminal btw:

* Leviticus 16:15 - 16 "He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for :the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the :bull's blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. 16 In this :way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness :and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same :for the Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

* Jeremiah 51:40 "I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams and goats to be sacrificed.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 1:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For pete's sake we all know what Denying the Holy spirit means in Christianity, or denying Jesus ect. We all know the context of the sheep vs the goat. I often thought as a Christian if I were the only one who's actually read the bible in my congregation, especially when at church they never like to get into discussing the evil psycho deity or psychology in the bible. So of course a King is going to bless the obedient servants.:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant [slave] will come in a day :when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut :him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that :servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according :to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did :commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto :whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men :have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

But let's really get to the point of what the bible is about in terms of becoming GOD's servants, or Jesus's disciples / servants..:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters :according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto :Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing :the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and :not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall :he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same :things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in :heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

The bible is largely about teaching dangerously blind obedience to power and their lords [governors]. It's a theme repeated, and repeated, and repeated throughout the entire bible. But that's nothing compared to what else is in the bible:

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God :giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the :LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other :gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, :which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, :and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such :abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that :woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or :that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Lev: 24:16

16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to :death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as :he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be :put to death.

Deut: 13:13 -18

13that certain(R)worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn :away the inhabitants of their city, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which :you have not known, 14then you shall inquire and make search and ask(S) :diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been :done among you, 15you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, :devoting it to destruction,[c] all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the :sword. 16You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and(T) burn :the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. :It shall be a(U) heap forever. It shall not be built again. 17(V) None of the devoted :things shall stick to your hand,(W) that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of :his anger and show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you,(X) :as he swore to your fathers, 18if you obey the voice of the LORD your God,(Y) :keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and doing what :is right in the sight of the LORD your God.

* And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up :for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be :destroyed.

Just making these up is psychologically disturbing:

Exodus 31:15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or :you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your :fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from :one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with :pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first :raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him :to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who :brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing :of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy :13:7-12 NAB)

And yes, God doesn't mind killing children:

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or :perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to :grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and :leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. :But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should :I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts :that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I :began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I :will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel :are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give :birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

Yes, THOSE EVIL CHILDREN! .. Oh, it's repeated here for you to!:

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and :kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill :them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch :anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by :killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its :courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city :and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

But let's do better and evaluate this:

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you :with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill :your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads :will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Reference the above to this:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys :came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up :baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of :the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the :children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

Fun stuff! And here is a reply I got from a theist on the above subject:
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:07:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's clear you get your arguments from the village atheism ;-)

All those misunderstandings need context and whence viewed in such a way it becomes obvious that .... well, you're wrong- I recomend Pual Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster?"

Or at minumum view his site, he's a philosopher that adequately dismantles your type of arguments.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:16:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God aims at maximizing your face.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you like, we can debate a problem of evil. You threw alot out there, Problem of evil, biblical innerancy, etc. It was all sort of rolled into one ball of atheist angry dogma... many different appeals to emotion as well. Oh and certain hermeneuticals that are just unfounded in modern biblical scholarship... I wonder if the internet is good for you?

Anyhow, I'll respond to this soon.