Posted on 12/20/2010 10:32:51 AM PST by truthfinder9
The Golden Rule, or in other words, the Principle of Reciprocity. Break it, and you'll have real-world consequences that are to the detriment of any organised social structure.
Cheers!
Is any phenomenon that lacks an explanation, 'supernatural'? For example, if no adequate explanation can fully describe the origin and mechanisms involved in causing pancreatic cancer, does that mean that 'supernatural' forces are in play? Are there different kinds of 'supernatural'? Can these differences be obfuscated / abused in deliberate attempts at mixing superstition with phenomena that is 'supernatural'?
Discuss!
(Isn't that what you atheists complain about, that God isn't just, but is unaccountable? So why comfort yourself with fairy tales about "recompense" of dictators when it doesn't even happen here in "the real world" ?)
Cheers!
You are, and remain, incorrect.
You have a vivid imagination, but not as much proclivity to actually ping the person who initiated that kind of debating here, to which I had replied with the excerpt to stimulate the discussion further (which, as I predicted, served my purpose rather well). Why did you ignore that person's original technique?
With respect and for the sake of honesty I must point out that atheism continually shows itself to be the product of flawed thinking and confusion.
The claim “God is not good” is both an admission of the truth of divine existence and a demonstration of a dependence on the unworkable logic that God’s standard of good is the same as our standard of good.
This implies that you are incapable of breaking down your cut-and-paste to it essentials, as I thought.
Ta-ta for now, have some Christmas gifts and personal things to attend to.
Cheers!
The funniest thing about atheists is that most of them say that there is no G-d because bad things happen. The only creator they can dare imagine is one who would only make a shiny unicorns and rainbows world. Obviously the god that would interest them would take away free natural biology, technology that could never be experimented on, no human growth, and no human choice! The god they want would be a perfect robot and we would all have to be robots.
It’s the same as saying that they hate the world. They do not see the brilliance, creativity, and freedom of Creation. They want ultimate control, like an obsessed model railroader.
You believe that an infant that was inflicted with an illness serious enough to cause sickness for a week, followed by death did not cause the infant any suffering, just the same way as you had implied in the earlier thread that the Amalekite infants and children could not have suffered through the consequences of the supposed act of the same deity ordering for their infanticide and deaths.
Since there is no possible way for you to redeem yourself (from this situation here that you find yourself in) other than by absorbing a more-than-healthy dose of self-inflicted embarrassment, you choose to pepper the thread with, ahem, "ad hominems"!
Cheers, and Merry Christmas!
If he is a who then he is also a what. How about what is divine?
We seem to agree on something. The question is what are you going to do about it? bellyaching is not enough.
LOL, the answer to your question required clarification of your poorly-concealed intent, which when exposed, caused you to make your predictable reaction / outburst. How thoroughly the scaffoldings have been unravelled!
Ta-ta for now, have some Christmas gifts and personal things to attend to.
Indeed, you do. Buh-bye!
You mean solipsism? is there any other type?
As Calvin said, "I declare you Null and Void."
Oooh, did he wave his magic wand?
Returning the same respect, why is there no answer to the question as to why David's child had to suffer?
"God's justice is not Man's justice" is a poor way of putting it, really, especially since we're all supposedly "created" in a certain image.
It is astonishing why this question is rarely, if ever, addressed in theological circles, especially in times that were contemporary with the writing of the scriptures, themselves. Wouldn't you agree that this is true?
“Is any phenomenon that lacks an explanation, ‘supernatural’?”
No.
Any phenomenon for which conventions of physics or chemistry cannot be applied, due to the fact that the particular phenomenon isn’t subject to pertinent laws or principles, is supernatural.
In trying to figure out something like cancer there’s no reason to exclude known principles of physics and chemistry.
But in thinking about the moment of the Big Bang, conventional principles of physics and chemistry are useless. The rules of nature, as defined by conventional science, don’t apply.
If you think there are “different kinds” of supernatural, let me know what they are.
See, you don't know anything about me. I never said I was an atheist an I never heard of Golden Bough. You are making things up, as usual. If I remember correctly, I asked you not to post to me and if not, I say it now. Making personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims doesn't contribute to a discussion of a topic.
Almost as clear, or maybe more clear, than the teaching that we’re created in God’s image is the teaching that we are inferior to God.
To think our being created in God’s image means our thoughts are equal to his is like trying to have common sense while excluding both the common and the sense.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 55:8)
So the question is do you have the confidence in your position, or your theology, or your ideology to admit and describe it openly? Why keep it a secret?
Can it withstand scrutiny, and can you support the burden of honesty and sincerity?
When and if you drop your judgmental questioning manner I will entertain your inquiries. But as long as you start with "are you capable of" or "are you honest enough" I will not because such questions are only baiting and provoking, and I will not stoop down so low.
The problem with that explanation again relates to what Kosta50 exposed in his earlier reply to you where he pointed out that for you to accept David’s child’s being inflicted by a fatal illness by the supposed deity as “divine justice”, you have to resort to the same deity’s supposed words which essentially boil down to mean that it did it because it can do it.
Now, for someone to accept this as sufficient justification, it requires them to possess faith in this deity, beforehand. In the same manner, a Muslim can “justify” the vile actions of that religion’s god, as well - and many do just that.
What is your explanation as to why there is a remarkable ‘toning down’ in the attitudinal qualities of this divinity-figure, from the Old Testament god all the way through Jesus? In other words, is it possible for you to imagine, say, Jesus ordering the slaughter of the Amalekite infants?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.