1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Gnostics versus Christians

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Evangelicalhumanist, Sep 7, 2017.

  1. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    I love the fact that you begin with by proposing syllogisms -- and end by ignoring totally the 6 (or 2 sets of 3 antithetical) premises that you propose, and fall away into telling stories from the Bible as if they happened exactly they way presented, even down to the quotes and the (impossible) presumption of what God's purpose was for all the things that happened.

    You not only support my entire point -- you completely make it for me.
     
  2. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    First, since this between an Atheist and a Christian I presented only these two relevant opposing positions. At least I offered the website for any to view if they wish to verify my quotes and for further information.

    Second, I offered further support for my position from what is the Christian's final authority - The Word of Truth. Your final authority is...?

    Third, your point was thoroughly refuted and in order for you to even enter into a logical debate you must borrow from the Christian worldview which alone can give an account of the laws of logic. You also have no foundation to make any moral judgments. Moral absolutes are governed by moral laws and laws are transcendent, universal, necessary, invariant, and immaterial so you have no rational justification, as an Atheist, for objecting to pain and suffering. But because you feel the discomfort of their existence (as a normal person would) you express your opinion and accept not that necessary knowledge of the truth that reconciles the problem.
     
  3. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    You mistake me if you think that I engage in "opposing position," especially between "Atheist and Christian." That's a useless place to be, for the simple reason that neither position has anything to go on other than its own belief system -- we can hurl beliefs at one another until the end of time and achieve nothing more than an interminable volley of useless lobs.
    And it is the "the Word of Truth" because -- well, why actually? Because it says it is? Because you believe it is? Trust me, I can find you thousands of other "words of truth" that make just that claim for themselves. Do you believe them?
    Surely you cannot mean what you said -- only the Christian worldview can give an account of the laws of logic? Those laws were invented before there were Christians (perhaps you've heard of the Greeks? Look them up -- they're quite interesting.)
    Okay, here's a great challenge for you: tell me one, single "moral absolute that is governed by a moral law that is transcendent, universal, necessary, invariant and immaterial." Then we'll see if I could have gotten there without God.
    What nonsense! I don't object to pain and suffering because I'm a rational atheist! I object to them because they hurt people! You may be so bound up in God-Grovelling that such a notion isn't important to you, but I wouldn't advise broadcasting that to the people around you. I don't personally think it's very edifying, and it certainly doesn't make you look good in my eyes.

    And no, I do not see that anything you've said "reconciles the problem." You simply say, "stop thinking about it, because it's anti-faith."

    The problem is not rectified, in my view, and I have still never seen a theodicy that I found even remotely convincing. I offer, as my opinion only, that if you have, then I think you have not thought about it carefully enough, having allowed your beliefs to set up roadblocks to your reason and humanity.
     
  4. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    You are a self-professed "Life long atheist" and you deny it? Your every response is that of an Atheistic worldview allowing your beliefs to set up roadblocks to your reason and humanity. Works both ways.

    As far as looking good in your eyes:

    "The mind swelled with self-conceit, says, the man should not stoop; the will, opposite to the will of God, says, he will not; and the corrupt affections, rising against the Lord, in defense of the corrupt will, says, he shall not." Thomas Boston

    I don't expect anything more from you than what you have expressed. What I hope for is that for those who might view our interactions will evaluate them according to the rules of logical debate i.e. civil, direct, rational, pertinent, responses. Not by presenting logically fallacious arguments i.e. strawmen, red-herrings, ad-hominems, circular reasoning, non sequitur etc.
     
  5. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,334
    Ratings:
    +5,026
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Many of the early Christians couldn't accept a God who made suffering of generations for one mistake, that he had knew would happen. Many of them were what are now called Gnostics.
     
  6. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    I am only going to say this: you say you want civil, direct, rational pertinent responses in debate, and yet you have not responded to a single point I've made in a whole series of posts, and instead have accused me of having "roadblocks to [my] reason and humanity" and "a mind swelled with self-conceit."

    'Nuff said. You're preaching, and I'm not in the choir.
     
  7. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    Actually it's called apologetics.
     
  8. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    I know that -- but normally, apologies are reserved for what is wrong. Nobody apologizes for being right.

    (Before you embark on a tirade over that bit of tongue-in-cheek, trust me I can disambiguate between apologetics and apology. But let it also be clear that ἀπολογία actually means "speaking in defense of," and our laws show a long tradition of lawyers speaking in defense of the guilty -- not trying to prove them innocent, but of getting them off regardless.

    It would not take an ἀπολογία to get Donald Trump off a charge of groping in the elevator at Trump Tower at 11:00 this morning -- it would take the wealth of evidence provided by the television cameras, radio, hundreds of direct witnesses, etc., that he was busy addressing the UN and threatening to annihilate other nations. Apologia seems to be reserved for things for you don't have any evidence for, but want believed anyway.)
     
    #88 Evangelicalhumanist, Sep 19, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  9. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    You're funny.
     
  10. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    You forgot to mention "correct."
     
  11. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hahahaha. Oh you.
     
  12. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    Furthering a rational discussion of the validity of making moral judgments as an Atheist and its inconsistency with the Atheistic worldview:

    If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
    Objective moral values do exist.
    Therefore God exists.
     
  13. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,334
    Ratings:
    +5,026
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    If God acts immorally, is God the perfect standard of Objective moral values?

    Belief in God also does not equate to belief in objective moral values or the other way around.
     
  14. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    Christian
    God cannot act contrary to His nature.

     
  15. The_Fisher_King

    The_Fisher_King Ploughing my own furrow
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,679
    Ratings:
    +435
    Religion:
    My own hodgepodge of a religion
    I'm not sure how much of a compromise this is, given that a fair few Gnostics held/hold this belief (myself included).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. What I find so fascinating about it is that it seems to state -- clearly and unequivocally, that if you did not have God, you would have zero way of knowing whether or not torturing babies for your own amusement is moral or not.

    My question is this (and by the way, I would consider that to be "an objective moral value" that it is always wrong to torture babies for your own amusement -- even if there are very sick people who might find it amusing): what does God have to do with making that an objective moral evil? What is it that babies -- all by themselves, helpless, vulnerable -- lack that makes it possible, without God, to suppose otherwise? I don't require God to tell me that killing people is wrong -- even though religion, in the name of God, has killed millions. (Yes, I know, lots of other humans have killed lots of other humans, with or without God as motive. That speaks to us, not to God.)

    So, as you can clearly see, I reject utterly your first premise, that "if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist." For me, the only thing required for a huge number of "objective moral values" is the object of those values alone -- as in my example above. Babies being the object, the moral value being the result. God not required.

    And may I also point out (though I'm not going to list them) the number of things that various scriptures have claimed are morally imperative -- in the very name of God. Such as stoning girls for chastity failures, or killing innocent children just because you want their parent's territories.

    I reject utterly the moral argument for God. It is a huge failure in my view.
     
  17. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +2,473
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    Then I think you should consider what "His nature" is more carefully. Try doing so in the story of David, Bathsheba, the killing of Bathsheba's husband Uriah to hide David's sin, and the eventual punishment of David through the death -- not of himself, for his crime -- but of his and Bathsheba's innocent child. I'm sure you know 2 Samuel, Chapters 11-12.

    So yeah, tell me about "objective moral values" and "God's nature."
     
  18. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,334
    Ratings:
    +5,026
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Does that mean that "He" could not resist immoral acts that were in "His" nature or that it's difficult to find better solutions that don't require going at things the hard way, that's suffering for all.


    There are many objective moral systems based on tradition, religions(some with gods, some without) and honor codes. Of course the utilitarian or what is best for the most of people is superior in providing good for people and honor codes are the strictest, though there is some overlap with fundamentalist religions that act like honor codes.
     
  19. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,892
    Ratings:
    +698
    Religion:
    Spiritual Naturalist
    the utter silence of God for 2017 years strikes me dead in my tracks. today's the day God speaks, and instead nothing.

    any kind of creator, and all you get is Cmbr.

    as Kahn would say, let them eat static.

    would a personal appearance of the creator violate the taboo of having faith in the unseen.

    only inner experience of the creator is revelation of God to all the people.

    you people sure do shed light on just how poorly written the bible is. I mean killing the first born children of Egypt without explanation.

    i dont know , perhaps an explanation of justification would help a non believer to see the light.

    God is god, isn't an justification for all God's actions in the O.T.

    wieldly execution of omniscient power without explanation, and then the silence of many years.

    how far must I go to believe in this God?

    what type of trust can a gentile develope this way?

    where is god evidenced in nature? the food chain. komodo dragons. hurricanes. tsunamis.

    somehow justice is served by the actions of nature. and I am guilty of shutting God out. and somehow God's existence is obvious.

    ahh to see things wanted, and not see things none desirable.

    and the bible , a looking glass filter to see the world as it is?

    to me, if creator is, than the creator is brute, indifferent, violent, reckless , primitive, crude, desparate, enjoys art, and doesn't care one bit. stone hearted, and cunning, and of alien intelligence.
     
  20. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,937
    Ratings:
    +3,270
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    The big difference between the regular Christians and Gnostics is Gnostics know that stuff is a myth and dare go beyond the typical bible canon.
     
Loading...