This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How can God's love be unconditional if it requires the follower to repent and...

#111hunter_gohanPosted 11/9/2012 3:06:34 PM
Systemafunk posted...
God's system contains BOTH justice and mercy. And, it only works because God is omniscient. Why are you arguing about whether we should institute this EXACT system into our system of finite and non omniscience?


Where exactly does omniscience factor into: "Person X did a crime/sin. Person X believes in person Y. Person Y will volunteer to take person X's punishment while person X walks free."?

Face it you know that is a complete mockery of everything justice stands for, and his mercy obviously isn't great enough for him to show himself to the 2/3 of the human race who simply do not believe he is real.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#112SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 3:06:40 PM
Belief in the Christian God as described in the Bible is indeed irrational, in addition to being unempirical.

No. It is not irrational. I'm sorry, but you saying that means either that you don't actually understand what rational means, or you don't understand what the Bible claims about God. Violating the laws of physics =/= irrational.


Belief in a some kind of God? At the very least, it is empirically irrational.


No such thing. Something can be both "non empirical" and "irrational", but there is no such thing as "empirically irrational". As far as I can tell, non-empirical is what you are going for (meaning, it doesn't make sense considering only empirical understanding), but if you are suggesting that it is both non-empirical AND irrational, you are wrong. Just because it doesn't make sense in light of only empirical understanding, it doesn't mean it actually violates some kind of logical or rational principle. For example, if I were to start levitating in front of you, and you waved your arms around me and found no strings or magnets or whatever, then that doesn't make what I did irrational. It means it simply doesn't conform to known empirical laws.


And yes, it is your choice to believe that only empirical knowledge leads to truth.
No, it's not. I am BY NATURE, a being that is guided by observation and evidence. I will never choose to do something that violates my senses.


Whatever you say. Plenty of people have changed that nature, but if you want to believe you can't, go right ahead.


If that were not the case, then there wouldn't even be philosophical debate about it.
The philosophical debate is over whether God is possible. I am perfectly open to that possibility. But don't you dare ****ing tell me that I can choose to believe in God. I only believe in what I can observe or test. I am not wired that way. It is not in my nature to deny what my senses can tell me. It is certainly not a choice. It is a natural instinct.


And don't insinuate that instinct overrides free will. Also, don't insinuate that your bent towards the empirical isn't learned and conditioned. Babies don't start out with a purely empirical way of thinking. People make NON empirical conclusions all the time that they just correct themselves on until it gets more and more familiar. That's the way your brain, every non damaged brain, works. Your brain keeps re-evaluating synapses that are no longer used, and reorganizing. It doesn't mean that is permanent though.

As far as actually believing in God specifically, no it doesn't happen "instantly". It doesn't happen by choice "like a light switch". But it does require a fair amount of time holding on to the "maybe" until the constant nagging tendency to throw away all non empirical understanding recedes. It is a "choice" in the same sense that being in much better physical shape is a choice. No, you can't just "will" yourself instantly into being built. No one is claiming such.

So don't pretend somehow that it is out of the realm of all possibility for some people. I used to be an atheist myself. I used to be a purely empirical person. I would argue OVER and OVER again that only empirical information had any validity. Don't act like, just because you have no personal knowledge to the contrary, that someone who is used to only thinking empirically can ever change that, because it happens whether you like it or not. There is far cry between saying it "won't" happen to you and saying that it "can't", and you just simply cannot make the latter claim. It also certainly WON'T when you erroneously believe that belief in God of any sort is irrational in any sense of the word.
#113SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 3:07:32 PM
Where exactly does omniscience factor into: "Person X did a crime/sin. Person X believes in person Y. Person Y will volunteer to take person X's punishment while person X walks free."?

Face it you know that is a complete mockery of everything justice stands for, and his mercy obviously isn't great enough for him to show himself to the 2/3 of the human race who simply do not believe he is real.


So basically, you weren't actually honestly asking that question?
#114SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 3:09:50 PM
Just because God is both just and merciful, it doesn't follow that every "merciful act" from God is also "just".

It also doesn't mean that a real life justice system has to be entirely just all the time. If that were the case, then Hammurabi's system would be preferable to ours. So don't act like the name "justice system" has some kind of all or nothing significance.
#115hunter_gohanPosted 11/9/2012 3:14:07 PM
Systemafunk posted...
So basically, you weren't actually honestly asking that question?


So basically, you have no answer which is what my second paragraph predicted. Because the level of knowledge a person has, has no bearing at all in that situation

Just because God is both just and merciful, it doesn't follow that every "merciful act" from God is also "just".


So this is an example of mercy, not justice? Why is this mercy only available to those who believe something for which there is no evidence? Why does he refuse to show that he in fact exists?

And if this isn't part of his justice system, then what exactly is? Infinite punishment for finite crimes? Because that isn't just at all either.

It also doesn't mean that a real life justice system has to be entirely just all the time. If that were the case, then Hammurabi's system would be preferable to ours. So don't act like the name "justice system" has some kind of all or nothing significance.


You view acts of barbarity and "eye for an eye" as justice? No wonder you proclaim this god has that aspect.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#116Barenziah Boy Toy(Topic Creator)Posted 11/9/2012 3:15:18 PM
No. It is not irrational. I'm sorry, but you saying that means either that you don't actually understand what rational means, or you don't understand what the Bible claims about God. Violating the laws of physics =/= irrational.
The Christian version of God violates several laws of reason, in addition to the laws of physics. The Teleological argument for example, is an irrational statement.

And don't insinuate that instinct overrides free will.
The instinct for hope and happiness overrides other instincts. It isn't free will that causes someone to 'choose' happiness over reason.

Also, don't insinuate that your bent towards the empirical isn't learned and conditioned.
Are you listening to yourself? Learning and conditioning is PART OF THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS. YOU JUST PROVED what I've been saying.

Babies don't start out with a purely empirical way of thinking.
Yes, they do. That's how they ****ing learn how to do stuff. Pain = bad, Pleasure = good, and then babies learn from there.

People make NON empirical conclusions all the time that they just correct themselves on until it gets more and more familiar.
THANK YOU PROVING my point. People make stupid conclusions, then slowly correct themselves USING THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS. It's called learning.

That's the way your brain, every non damaged brain, works. Your brain keeps re-evaluating synapses that are no longer used, and reorganizing. It doesn't mean that is permanent though.
EMPIRICISM!
.
---
You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}
#117Barenziah Boy Toy(Topic Creator)Posted 11/9/2012 3:18:13 PM
^ Having said that.

My EMPIRICAL NATURE forces me to NOT conclude that God exists until further evidence is provided. This is not a choice, this is pure instinct. Whether it be learned or ingrained in my DNA, I do not have a choice in this matter. I was born with too much empiricism in my DNA or 'soul' to go against it now.
.
---
You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}
#118SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 3:23:00 PM
So basically, you have no answer which is what my second paragraph predicted. Because the level of knowledge a person has, has no bearing at all in that situation

Nice assumption. The reason I wasn't keen on answering was because you already showed what you were wanting your conclusion to be. Why argue with someone who has already made up their mind?


Just because God is both just and merciful, it doesn't follow that every "merciful act" from God is also "just".

So this is an example of mercy, not justice? Why is this mercy only available to those who believe something for which there is no evidence? Why does he refuse to show that he in fact exists?


Stop moving the discussion around. Your claim that God is never just, just because of some of his acts of mercy, is clearly wrong.


And if this isn't part of his justice system, then what exactly is? Infinite punishment for finite crimes? Because that isn't just at all either.


The idea of a "justice system" doesn't even make sense in this context. The simple fact is that God is BOTH just and merciful. That is what is always claimed, and that is still true.

It also doesn't mean that a real life justice system has to be entirely just all the time. If that were the case, then Hammurabi's system would be preferable to ours. So don't act like the name "justice system" has some kind of all or nothing significance.



You view acts of barbarity and "eye for an eye" as justice? No wonder you proclaim this god has that aspect.


You are being silly. Justice is merely "getting what you deserve". You are confusing the word "justice" with what we now consider to be equitable and effective in our justice system. Meaning, we have already discovered that being just all the time is less effective. However, yes, it does make sense to say that a person who does something negative to someone deserves to have that same exact thing done to them. What exactly do you disagree with about saying that? You say it is barbaric, but the whole freaking point is that it is BECAUSE what that person did was the same thing, and therefore the same "barbarism". Therefore, they (under the assumption of perfect justice) deserve what they give out.

The plain fact though is that our current model of a justice system does NOT make use of this model of justice, because being perfectly just all the time, especially in light of our lack of perfect knowledge, causes problems. It's not the fault of the definitions or the concepts though.
#119Barenziah Boy Toy(Topic Creator)Posted 11/9/2012 3:27:59 PM
Therefore, they (under the assumption of perfect justice) deserve what they give out.
False, nobody deserves to be killed in cold blood. Nobody deserves to get raped. Nobody deserves to get tortured. Not even those that perpetrated it onto others. If we applied eye for eye, then we're sending the message that there are cases where people do indeed deserve to get killed/raped/tortured, which allows the populace to decide on their own who gets to do it.
.
---
You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}
#120SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 3:32:39 PM
No. It is not irrational. I'm sorry, but you saying that means either that you don't actually understand what rational means, or you don't understand what the Bible claims about God. Violating the laws of physics =/= irrational.
The Christian version of God violates several laws of reason, in addition to the laws of physics. The Teleological argument for example, is an irrational statement.


I don't use the telelogical argument. I prefer to think of it as being heirarchical. That is, "God the Father" is the system admin. Jesus is the system administrators administrative account. The Holy Spirit is a hacking program controlled by the admin. Of course, this gets "derided" as modalism by the Orthodox, but I don't really care. The point is that you would refer to all of those as the actions of the same being, even though they are seemingly three separate entities. It doesn't violate logic. I used to argue that it does. Oh boy, did I ever argue. I used the "identity of indiscernibles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
But you know what? I was wrong. The Trinity is not illogical. No more than something like "non dualism" is illogical.


And don't insinuate that instinct overrides free will.
The instinct for hope and happiness overrides other instincts. It isn't free will that causes someone to 'choose' happiness over reason.


Yes it most certainly can be. Unless this is just a thinly veiled argument that all of our choices are really just the result of instinct, and we actually have no free will. If you think we don't have free will, and everything is really just a subconscious instinct that "bubbles to the surface" then why are you even arguing this?


Also, don't insinuate that your bent towards the empirical isn't learned and conditioned.
Are you listening to yourself? Learning and conditioning is PART OF THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS. YOU JUST PROVED what I've been saying.


Huh? Are you saying that people who believe in more than the empirical world don't learn or get conditioned? You aren't making sense about something here.


Babies don't start out with a purely empirical way of thinking.
Yes, they do. That's how they ****ing learn how to do stuff. Pain = bad, Pleasure = good, and then babies learn from there.


No they don't. For example, babies assume that if they can't see you, you can't see them. ENTIRELY non empirical. But again, go ahead and just believe whatever you want.


People make NON empirical conclusions all the time that they just correct themselves on until it gets more and more familiar.
THANK YOU PROVING my point. People make stupid conclusions, then slowly correct themselves USING THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS. It's called learning.


Except for the fact that they DON'T always. Not only that, but it doesn't always mean that it leads to a more "correct" conclusion.


That's the way your brain, every non damaged brain, works. Your brain keeps re-evaluating synapses that are no longer used, and reorganizing. It doesn't mean that is permanent though.
EMPIRICISM!


Settle down sir.