And God commandeth, "Kill your mother."

[emprworm]

well i am glad to know that even atheists have a concept of a "perfectly moral person" and realize that they fall short of this standard.

[rogue1896]

well i tend to consider myself a man of science. now, i wouldn't exactly call myself an atheist but i have my doubts. like i HIGHLY doubt like acriku said that there's a little allele or something in your DNA that rejects or accepts God. To believe or not to believe in Him is a personal choice, not one that God tells you to or something. When i see someone like TMA or sneezer and how they feel about subjects like this, no offense, but i consider your kind religious fanatics. I can cope with the idea that someone or something did interact with humans in Egypt and stuff like that that's written in the Bible but some of the stuff is PROVEN wrong through scientific research. If you still say that humans were just placed on the Earth just like that, even after all the data and research into the Evolution of Man via Darwin's theory, then you're a very, very devote christian. But to just totally through out scientific proof b/c it doesn't coincide with your believes is hypocrisy. For all ANY of you or ANYONE knows the Bible is a popular novel written in the very distant past. Who's to say that like 1,000 years from now, when the world is created a new after a huge war or something that a person or thing might find a book. this book might have a factual reference or two but it'd still be a fictional story. then that group of people or things might see it as a religious artifact or something that a great being meant for them to find. That would be their Bible and they'd base their life off of that book. now how do you know that's not what happened with the Bible we use now? perhaps a very long time ago someone just found a book and said, 'He must've meant for me to find this!'? i'm sorry if most of this post doesn't make much sense but i'm just really writing this down as it comes to mind. Now, i want either TMA or sneezer to try to give me some kind of ROCK HARD proof or even, yes, scientific proof that the Bible is ACTUAL events that God really did intervene in. Because i cannot deal with the idea that we're just supposed to believe. if we all just had the concept of believing we could just believe that an item was not radioctive or something but it'd still be radioactive and it'd probably kill you. i hope at least someone is able to decipher this. b/c to be honest i kinda lost myself. i was ALL over the place here.

[sneezer3]

Oh please, I laugh at the idea that in the genome of human chromosomes there is an allele to reject God. And being saved does not make you a perfectly moral person, you can still sin, still reject God later on, and still be as you were not saved.

I never said there was. but it is humen sin nature to reject God. Just like it sounded better when Saten said that adem and eve would be like God if they eat that apple. But when you think about it is not logicol to take the apple. in the same way..

No one is perfect but God. and sin requires a payment and if someone hasn't accepted then they will have to pay there own price.

being saved does not make you a perfectly moral person, you can still sin, still reject God later on, and still be as you were not saved.

Yeah. although such a case is very rare.

[Acriku]

No one is perfect but God. and sin requires a payment and if someone hasn't accepted then they will have to pay there own price.

Heh, indulgences come to mind.

I never said there was.

Ah but you played with the idea. And I laughed at it.

but what am i saying. it is in your humen nature to reject, probbly even DNA code.

[emprworm]

i agree with sneezer to a point. human nature is an abstract term, yet it has meaning that is objective, and that all people understand. see my argument for the human soul. In it, I go over how all people have a "standard" they are aware of and expect others to follow (a common notion 'fair play'). HUmans are constantly breaking this 'fair play' rule. When we break it, we justify it and make excuses for ourselves. This is knowledge of moral law, and I believe is an immaterial component of human existence.

[SurlyPIG]

Those of you who said yes without strings should be respected. They follow the beliefs completely. Those are the believers that are true.

I have no respect whatsoever for that. I think it's absolutely deplorable. Blind loyalty is TERRIBLE. Absolutely terrible. That's like saying "My way, wrong or right" and having everyone follow. I find it disgusting that some people won't draw a line. I will not respect that. I will accept that it is a harsh, backward reality that some people would do that. But I have no more respect for someone who'd kill for their god than I do for the perpetrators of 9/11 (which is actually the same thing).

[rogue1896]

sneezer, i don't mean this to be offensive or if you really are, which is unlikely, don't take offense. You remind me of one of those puritans from colonial periods. You probably think that we're all going to hell anyway b/c we've all sinned but only a few chosen ones will get up to heaven so we all better be extra nice. and you probably see science as a sort of witchcraft ;) but as the future becomes the now you have to let go of old ideas. Try to accept the idea that God does not affect everything. Like acriku said to me in a IM, it's good to think for yourself. why don't you try to think for yourself for once instead of regurtitating(sp?) the same old phrases that have been echoed for eternity.

EDIT - good point ace. blind loyalty is a terrible thing. it's like following orders without actually realizing what your doing. it's almost like mind control except it's of one's own free will.

[Acriku]

Ok guys, starting now, I would like this to get back ontopic. Stop avoiding my post! Discuss what I said in that post please.

Ok, this is what everybody has been waiting for! I have waiting long enough! Besides the sacrificial virgin is getting bored

This poll was made for a couple reasons, one was to see where people's faith limit was. Would their faith be so deep that they would follow any command of God, even if it meant kill their mother? I believe we got a widespread response. Some said yes. Many said no. Some were a little iffy. Now we will find out why they had to reach down into the waters of faith some have not swam in.

I will get to another reason later down.

Now, some people might be familiar with "Plato's Dilemma", where he asks: Is it good because God says it is, or does God say it because it is good? The people who have answered with no conditions, fall under one of these two. Those who said yes, obviously fall under the former, and the no-sayers fall under the latter. Those with conditions, well we can let them sort it out later to which they might come to an answer with no conditions.

The people who have said yes, might want to know about the Divine Command Theory. This is basically that moral actions are those which conform to God's will. Whatever God says to do, it must be morally good, and whatever God says not to do, must be morally bad. Bad things are because God says so, and good things are because God says so. This link can explain it more so : http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/divineco.htm

Those who have said no, find themselves adhering to an external moral code. And you might also find, that you have more in common with humanism that you might have previously thought. Yep, that's right, theists can be secular humanist and still be a theist, and there are many examples. Check out the Affirmations of Humanism : http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

After reading the Affirmations of Humanism, you might find out that a lot of your beliefs are common with Humanism. Perhaps you might agree with them so much as do declare yourself a secular humanist - and that doesn't denounce your faith whatsoever

Hope you enjoyed this thread, and feel free to discuss this here.

Now please discuss the above.

[emprworm]

lol! finally we get to the point.

unfortunately for Plato, there is no dilemma at all. The whole argument comits the "false dilemma fallacy" lol. How ironic!

"Is it good because God says it is, or does God say it because it is good? "

Neither. It is good because of who God is. It has nothing to do with what God says.

[rogue1896]

sorry, i kinda went offtopic a little. ::) :D

[hide]b/c you know, rogue NEVER goes offtopic. lol[/hide]

[Acriku]

Emprworm, do explain this "false dilemma fallacy" and how it applies to Plato's dilemma. And thank GOD we got back ontopic (no problem though, just needed some guidance back ontopic).

[sneezer3]

Ok guys, starting now, I would like this to get back ontopic. Stop avoiding my post! Discuss what I said in that post please.

Ok. me & Rogue will talk over IM or yahoo or something.

but what exactly is there to talk about at that at this point? i mean Really?

[DjCiD]

hey IM on AIM too, well actually its Trillian but its all in one...

[Acriku]

Did you not hear me sneezer? Of course you didn't, but did you not read what I said? Discuss it. If you don't want to, I can't make you, and you are welcome to not post it. But please inform us on your opinion of the whole jist of things.

[emprworm]

dont bother sneezer. Plato's dilemma is no dilemma at all.

it commits the fallacy of the "false dilemma"...a well known fallacy by atheists.

To learn about this fallacy, go here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

[Acriku]

Ok Emprworm fair enough. Now prove that there is indeed an explanation that both of them could be false. Is it something God controls, or is it something God can't control. There is no between, no around, just BAM! Right head on towards the two. But I would be interested in your explanation.

[emprworm]

morality is based upon the nature of God, not what He says. God would never go against his nature.

"Can God lie?"

No.

"Can God cease to be God?"

Nope.

Those are illogical propositions. Because they violate the laws of logic (similar to saying "I always lie"), they must be false.

Plato is presenting a "dilema" in which he is speculating that God could tell you to do something against his own nature, which would set up a contradiction.

A thing is ultimately right/wrong because of who God is, not because of what He says

[Acriku]

So now God isn't omnipotent? He doesn't have the power to lie? Who are you to say he can't lie, or doesn't lie? You do not know his will, his plan, or him barely. It isn't imperfect to be able to lie. And please don't use your dogma to prove something logically infallible, it is hypocritical. Using your dogma to prove something within the dogma, hmm. So Emprworm, do you not kill somebody because God told you not to?

[SurlyPIG]

"Can God lie?"

No.

"Can God cease to be God?"

Nope.

Those are illogical propositions. Because they violate the laws of logic (similar to saying "I always lie"), they must be false.

Plato is presenting a "dilema" in which he is speculating that God could tell you to do something against his own nature, which would set up a contradiction.

A thing is ultimately right/wrong because of who God is, not because of what He says

If i'm misinterpreting this just say so but sneezer also said this.

I assume you both think that God is perfect and infallable and would never go against his own commandments and would never lie (a conglomerate of quotes from both emp and sneezer). Well, in the bible he "tested Abraham's faith" by telling him to kill his son. Here he is contradicting his own beliefs. But then He sends an angel to stop him. Though it isn't technically a lie, it might as well be. He's saying "You must kill your son." and prevening him from doing so.

Thats like me saying, "You must catch this basketball I pass to you." and then hog-tying you so you're face down on the floor before I throw the ball. It's manipulation.

[Acriku]

Hmm...didn't pick that up. Bah! It's midnight and I'm wide awake. What's wrong with me Jesus?

[DjCiD]

Well the whole story is about testing Abrahms faith. He didnt say it was set in stone he must kill his child, he just told him to do it. It was a test. If someone said hey go jump off a cliff would you do it? And then when Abrham went to the altar to sacrifice his son then God sent the angel to tell him he didnt have to do it, it was a test. So I'm not sure how your saying its a lie.

And Dogma was a good movie... ;D

[sneezer3]

Well the whole story is about testing Abrahms faith. He didnt say it was set in stone he must kill his child, he just told him to do it. It was a test. If someone said hey go jump off a cliff would you do it? And then when Abrham went to the altar to sacrifice his son then God sent the angel to tell him he didnt have to do it, it was a test. So I'm not sure how your saying its a lie.

And Dogma was a good movie... ;D

Yeah. and its Saten thats the father of all lies. the master deciver. Not God! ;) lol.

[rogue1896]

yeah dj, dogma was a good movie. but i only saw like the last little bit of it. it's onl comedy central from time to time. ;D

[TMA_1]

Geesh we all see reality different guys, remember that. Also Platonic and Neo Platonic views are completely messed up in my opinion. He was the least favorite of greek philosophers I have studied. What a corn ball that guy was.lol full of it. Anyways. You think that blind faith is bad? you just say that because of the culture you were raised in. Either you were forced into believing something and grew bitter from it, or you were raised in a lax environment and were allowed to believe anything you want.

[rogue1896]

but don't you see tma? that's how it should be. i was raised generally in an environment where i was able to believe what i wanted. and that's how each person should be. if you want to believe in God b/c you believe there is something deeper to life then that should be your decision. if you want to believe like me, ace, and acriku then that should also be your decision.