Commentary: Is God needed for morality? (Chrs vs. Manwe)

[disciple100]

Here's a good story that sums up what evil is:

The FBI had an opening. After all the background checks, interviews and testing were done, there were 3 finalists.Two men and a woman. For the final test, the FBI agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun.

"We must know that you will follow your instructions no matter what the circumstances. Inside the room you will find your wife sitting in a chair..."

"Shoot her!" The man said, "You can't be serious. I could never shoot my wife." The agent said, "Then you're not the right man for this job. Take your wife and go home."

The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about 5 minutes. The man came out with tears in his eyes, " I tried, but I can't shoot my wife." The agent said, "You don't have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."

Finally, it was the woman's turn. She was given the same instruction, to shoot her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman, wiping the sweat from her brow.

"The gun was loaded with blanks" she said, "I had to beat him to death with the chair."

Moral of this story: Women are evil. Don't mess with them.

[Stax]

Moral of this story: Women are evil. Don't mess with them.

You might like a mathematical joke along these lines:

Women = time x money
[Time = money]
Women = (money)^2
[Money = root of all evil]
Women = (sqrt evil)^2
Women = evil

[disciple100]

You might like a mathematical joke along these lines:

Women = time x money
[Time = money]
Women = (money)^2
[Money = root of all evil]
Women = (sqrt evil)^2
Women = evil

The philosophical and mathematical data confirm it!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What do you mean by "it does not follow." It follows precisely. How could it be any clearer? If they had eaten of the fruit from the tree of life they would have attained eternal life according to God himself, no ifs ands or buts about it, ergo they attained knowledge of evil in the same manner from the eating of the fruit of the tree, not from the disobedient act itself. If you understand the truth of the former then you can not help but to admit the same is true of the latter.

Not so. The nature of the tree has been debated throughout Christian history. For instance, I do not believe it would have granted them absolute immortal life and I do believe man was created a dying creature.

Of course evil is not a substance that can dwell in things, eternal life can not dwell in fruit any more than knowledge of evil can, which should reveal to you the fairy tale nature of the story.

No one is saying knowledge or life dwelt in the fruit. It's a different relation.

The question is not how the consumption of a piece of fruit could bring about eternal life, the question is, is that what the story explicitly states. The answer is an absolutely positively, no way around it, YES. So how have I not shown my case? The bible, out of the mouth of God himself, explicitly states exactly my case. It is a fairy tale story wherein the eating of the magical fruit itself changes the nature of man.

No. I do not believe you have and the history of Christian interpretation will show that.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes I recognise your ineptitude and those like you.

Your sight is atrocious then.

You only have personal attacks and name calling.

I win!

So quick to claim victory. Makes me think you know when you don't have an argument.

I can't be held to blame because you pretend christians are impervious to reality.

But I do continue to assist your out of your story book fantasies.

Sorry bub. I'm hardly impervious. I read stuff that attacks my faith just for fun.

I knew you were a fraud pretending to be a christian and a story book language scholar, and I was right.

Thanks for confirming that!

No. I never claimed to be a scholar. I claimed to know anything you could find just by using biblical study tools like Strong's and Vine's. If I claimed to be a scholar, you'd have a point.

However, are you a biblical scholar?

If not, by your own standards, be quiet.

What else do you want to know from me?

I want to know why I should vote for you over Yo Lunch for dumbest TWeb Troll

I'm not an atheist as I have stated many times. " I believe in an Intelligent Designer (God for want of a better word) however it is unworthy of my worship (especially the story book trinitarian alleged one)

It'd be amusing to see how little you know of the Trinity. From what I've seen, not much if anything.

So what does natural theology then tell you about your God?

You just don't do your homework or research properly or accurately, which is typical of pretend christians.

Yes. Because homework involves studying every troll that comes along on the net.....

I am not dumb and I do blame story book believers that believe you need to be a scholar in many languages to understand correctly the story book text.

The first point is certainly debatable. Do you need to be a scholar to understand the text correctly? Not in all cases. The basic message can be grasped by all. The intricacies require study.

Anything less than that or the illiterate haven't a hope! LOL!

I suppose you have no hope then.

Dismiss it all you can try, but it doesn't save you. It's there in the story book and is significant to the story book tale you so called christians claim to believe but in reality do not!

I wasn't dismissing the text but saying it's not an essential to the gospel. I do believe the text. I also believe your interpretation is wrong.

Story book Ezek. 18:20 refutes the need for a Jesus and makes him a liar and a fraud!

Story book Deuteronomy 24:16 also refutes the need for a Jesus and makes him a liar and a fraud!

I need more than bold assertions. I need arguments with these texts.

The story book stating that man was dependent on the Tree of Life to make him Immortal also decimates the claim that sin brought death.

If you mean physical death, I agree. It's not my claim that physical death is a result of the Fall.

Your story book ideology remains in tatters and decomposing at my feet.

Much bravado. No substance to it though. Come on. Make me blink.

That's why there are myriads of different religions and even disagreements within many of them. LOL!

It is a wonder how the interpretation of a text being clear somehow means everyone would believe said text or have access to it or willingly submit to it. Leaps of logic like yours indicate a weak mind.

Proving my point exactly. What a dumb god you made for yourself for providing a book that hardly any one can read for themselves and even those that can read need to be scholars in multiple languages. LOL!

No. The text would have been understood read in the congregations by hearers in that language. Why should God be expected to have a book written in the 1st century speak in 21st century terms?

Circular reasoning I don't use but you certainly do as in your very next claim about philosophers -

It was philosophers you foolishly hold so dear, that fabricated the trinitarian ideology, which corrupted the Original message portrayed by those calling themselves christians -

Oh really? Do name the philosophers!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

And I should believe this because? Now I'd agree Paul wasn't going around stating the doctrine of the Trinity in its final sense, but we find all the seeds of the doctrine in his works, such as the Christianizing of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8 and the Trinitarian benediction in 2 Cor. 13.

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

And I have zero problem with the second quote. Strange that not a single philosopher was cited....

&

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . . (Page 160. How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com) - (My Bold)

Wow. So just an assertion of no is supposed to be convincing? No Larry Hurtado? No Bauckham? No O'Collins?

1. At least I do get things right which is the opposite of you.
2. I get things right all on my little own also, again unlike you.

Is all you can do just try to turn around what I say? Dang. How dumb. You can't even insult someone right.

Well at the drug store it is the products of men.
In the story book Garden of Eden it was your God that produced everything wasn't it, including Magical Fruit?

Your analogy is typically flawed and spurious.

Who made it is irrelevant to the point of the analogy. Of course, it's easier to try to brush away an argument instead of engage it.

I am taking things slowly because you can't keep up even at that slow speed.

Nah. You're just boring.

#evil - So you don't believe your story book God that states it created Good & Evil early in the Genesis narrative. Ok! throw your story book in the recycle bin where it belongs, or on the shelf with other books of man made fantasy.

No. Evil cannot be created because evil is not a substance. It does not have ontological reality.

See #evil above.




See #evil above.

Better luck next time!

I see your inability to engage with the points loud and clear.

[JimL]

Not so. The nature of the tree has been debated throughout Christian history. For instance, I do not believe it would have granted them absolute immortal life and I do believe man was created a dying creature.

Sure, but what you believe is not what the story actually states. What it says is that if they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge that they will surely die, which they did not. If you say no, that they were immortal and the eating of the fruit merely made them mortal, whether by the decree of God or by the magical power of the fruit, then what possible purpose did the tree of life serve. And besides that fact, God explicitly says that if they should eat of the fruit from the tree of life that they would live forever. So how do you explain that? To say that you do not believe what it explicitly says is not an explanation.

No one is saying knowledge or life dwelt in the fruit. It's a different relation.

Thats not an explanation. If God says that if they eat of the fruit from the tree of life that they will live forever, then God himself is saying that eternal life is in the magical fruit, and if that is the case for the tree of life then the same has to be assumed true for the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now I know that Christians like to spin the story and say that it was not the fruit itself that did the trick even though that is explicitly what the story says, but if that is so how do you explain the exact words of God regarding the tree of life?

No. I do not believe you have and the history of Christian interpretation will show that.

Again, this is not an explanation. How do christians interpret Gods words concerning the tree of life to mean something other than what he explicitly says?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Sure, but what you believe is not what the story actually states. What it says is that if they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge that they will surely die, which they did not.

What kind of death? The text doesn't say, and since they didn't die immediately, I conclude it was spiritual death.

If you say no, that they were immortal and the eating of the fruit merely made them mortal, whether by the decree of God or by the magical power of the fruit, then what possible purpose did the tree of life serve. And besides that fact, God explicitly says that if they should eat of the fruit from the tree of life that they would live forever. So how do you explain that? To say that you do not believe what it explicitly says is not an explanation.

It gave perpetual immortality. Had they not sinned and remained in the garden, the fruit would have kept them alive.

Thats not an explanation. If God says that if they eat of the fruit from the tree of life that they will live forever, then God himself is saying that eternal life is in the magical fruit, and if that is the case for the tree of life then the same has to be assumed true for the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now I know that Christians like to spin the story and say that it was not the fruit itself that did the trick even though that is explicitly what the story says, but if that is so how do you explain the exact words of God regarding the tree of life?

Already done. Had they stayed in the garden, they would have been continually able to be kept alive by the fruit. Of course, I also think God knew they wouldn't ever take of the fruit.

Again, this is not an explanation. How do christians interpret Gods words concerning the tree of life to mean something other than what he explicitly says?

Which is assuming your idea of what is "explicitly said" is correct.

[Composer]

Originally posted by Composer
Yes I recognise your ineptitude and those like you.

Your sight is atrocious then.

That is your picture of you wearing glasses isn't it?

You only have personal attacks and name calling.

I win!

So quick to claim victory. Makes me think you know when you don't have an argument.

I prefer the bottom-line up front rather than those losers like you wasting more of my time than is necessary.

I can't be held to blame because you pretend christians are impervious to reality.

But I do continue to assist your out of your story book fantasies.

Sorry bub. I'm hardly impervious. I read stuff that attacks my faith just for fun.

You are just another of the rest whose faith is spurious except in your own imaginations.

Your story book Jesus doesn't believe you either, hence your failure to manifest the promises already given to genuine story book Jesus believers.

I knew you were a fraud pretending to be a christian and a story book language scholar, and I was right.

Thanks for confirming that!

o. I never claimed to be a scholar. I claimed to know anything you could find just by using biblical study tools like Strong's and Vine's. If I claimed to be a scholar, you'd have a point.

Ok, you admit you are not a scholar. I knew that from the start LOL!

However, are you a biblical scholar?
If not, by your own standards, be quiet.

Do I speak Hebrew or Greek, No. But at least I don't try to pretend I do like you did.

Ok so the rest of your waffle is just more of your pretend Jesus believer slander and name calling etc.

As with story book frauds like you, Legitimately demonstrate that the story book are the Words of a God given to men? or shut up and pay attention to Yo Lunch and myself here who will correct your past blunders and failures.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That is your picture of you wearing glasses isn't it?

Yes, like I give a darn what you think of my portrait.

I prefer the bottom-line up front rather than those losers like you wasting more of my time than is necessary.

The only waste going on is your lack of substance. You seem to replace substance with bravado. All bark. No bite.

You are just another of the rest whose faith is spurious except in your own imaginations.

Your story book Jesus doesn't believe you either, hence your failure to manifest the promises already given to genuine story book Jesus believers.

I assure you you don't want to go into Word of Faith terminology.

Ok, you admit you are not a scholar. I knew that from the start LOL!

Somehow you think that invalidates anything I've said.

Do I speak Hebrew or Greek, No. But at least I don't try to pretend I do like you did.

Asking what a word is is not claiming to speak the language.

Ok so the rest of your waffle is just more of your pretend Jesus believer slander and name calling etc.

Oh the irony of the pot calling the kettle black.

As with story book frauds like you, Legitimately demonstrate that the story book are the Words of a God given to men? or shut up and pay attention to Yo Lunch and myself here who will correct your past blunders and failures.

Or you can put forward an argument where you actually deal with the ontology of good and evil. All you've done in this post is personal attacks with no argument. I'm not surprised.

[OtherCheek]

Again, I asked you "if" the natural law of balance is real, why do we need God for morals? In other words, if I am correct in my beliefs about the law of balance, why does anyone need to believe in God for their morals? If my beliefs about the law of balance are correct, wouldn't morals exist whether God did or not?

I don't assume that the law of balance is real. I remember the patterns of my many lives, suffering being returned with suffering, which lead me to the understanding that there is a law of balance. One could also believe that some intelligence is making sure that everyone who causes suffering also suffers. But then that wouldn't be a law, but a judgment. I have reasons for not believing in a eternal mind.

I really do hope that you answer the questions I've asked, as I have answered yours.

I'm showing through abduction that there is another possible reason for morals to exist other than a god.

I think you can still operate from your premise "the law of balance" and still conclude that God's existence is necessary in order for people to understand and properly discern between good and evil.

[disciple100]

I think you can still operate from your premise "the law of balance" and still conclude that God's existence is necessary in order for people to understand and properly discern between good and evil.

I'm still waiting for him to tell me how you can be reincarnated naturally.

[SatanTheAlien]

Apologia and lilpixie, I take it that my last post answered all your questions. The one on page seven that outlines my views.

[JimL]

What kind of death? The text doesn't say, and since they didn't die immediately, I conclude it was spiritual death.

Thats true the text does not say, so you came to this conclusion why?

At any rate, you believe that A+E were created mortal and that the eating from the tree gave them spiritual death. Could you explain exactly what you mean by spiritual death? What did they have that they lost as a result, and would you please define it?

It gave perpetual immortality. Had they not sinned and remained in the garden, the fruit would have kept them alive.

So you admit at least that it was the fruit itself from the tree of life that had the magical power in it but disagree that the same was true for the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Why would you assume a difference in the two cases?

Already done. Had they stayed in the garden, they would have been continually able to be kept alive by the fruit. Of course, I also think God knew they wouldn't ever take of the fruit.

So you think that God knew beforehand so that the whole incident was a setup?

]Which is assuming your idea of what is "explicitly said" is correct.

My interpretation is of what is actual said, yours it seems is a manipulation of the actual reading with no other basis it seems to me except to try and make more logical which in either case you fail to do.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Thats true the text does not say, so you came to this conclusion why?

Because I see it wasn't physical death yet God promised death, so I conclude it means spiritual death.

At any rate, you believe that A+E were created mortal and that the eating from the tree gave them spiritual death. Could you explain exactly what you mean by spiritual death? What did they have that they lost as a result, and would you please define it?

Yes. They were cut off from fellowship with God in whom is true life. Because of that, they were what Paul would call, dead in transgressions.

So you admit at least that it was the fruit itself from the tree of life that had the magical power in it but disagree that the same was true for the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Why would you assume a difference in the two cases?

I don't. I also don't believe it's fair to speak of magical power. I say nothing of the sort and it is a way of poisoning the well. Eating the fruit brought about knowledge the same way eating the other brought about life.

So you think that God knew beforehand so that the whole incident was a setup?

No. He knew beforehand they would fall, but he did not set them up to fall. He put them in a place where they could freely exercise belief or disbelief in him. To claim it is a setup is a loaded question.

My interpretation is of what is actual said, yours it seems is a manipulation of the actual reading with no other basis it seems to me except to try and make more logical which in either case you fail to do.

No. Yours is a fundamentalist interpretation and you decry my interpretation simply on the basis that it is not yours, not realizing that my interpretation is in line with historic Christian interpretation. That does not make it true. That does not make it false. It simply makes it a valid interpretation in the history of orthodoxy. However, you are implying that yours is the only one that could have been meant and in that case, the burden is yours to demonstrate such.

[JimL]

Because I see it wasn't physical death yet God promised death, so I conclude it means spiritual death.

Well, you are free of course to conclude that it meant spiritual death, but my point is that the text itself says nothing about spirit. I have had this discussion with other christians here on tweb whose conclusion was that it was not the fruit itself but the decree of God for their disobedience that they died for, and also that the result was not spiritual death but a change of their natures from immortal to mortal. Do you suppose God would deliberately make his meaning obscure?

Yes. They were cut off from fellowship with God in whom is true life. Because of that, they were what Paul would call, dead in transgressions.

But what does it mean to be cut off from fellowship with God? What is spirit? Is it a something, or is it as you are suggesting just some kind of friendship with God that A+E lost due to their eyes being opened?

I don't. I also don't believe it's fair to speak of magical power. I say nothing of the sort and it is a way of poisoning the well. Eating the fruit brought about knowledge the same way eating the other brought about life.

If the eating of the fruit brings about knowledge as well as eternal life in those that eat it then I would say it is magical in the sense that such a thing is unknown in the nature of fruit. I understand that from your point of view it is real, but our beliefs in the authenticity of the story differ and therefore speaking from my own perspective the fruit is magical. I am surprised though at your belief that the consumption of the fruit actually changes the nature of man. It may be a more common belief than I know, but I don't think that anyone has ever made that argument to me.

No. He knew beforehand they would fall, but he did not set them up to fall. He put them in a place where they could freely exercise belief or disbelief in him. To claim it is a setup is a loaded question.

Well, it was not a question, it was my interpretation of your own point of view. If God put them in a place knowing beforehand exactly what they would do, then how could they possibly have freedom to do otherwise? What makes you think that God knew beforehand, and if he did then what was it with all his questioning and indignation of A+E after the fact. Was he just putting on a show?

No. Yours is a fundamentalist interpretation and you decry my interpretation simply on the basis that it is not yours, not realizing that my interpretation is in line with historic Christian interpretation. That does not make it true. That does not make it false. It simply makes it a valid interpretation in the history of orthodoxy. However, you are implying that yours is the only one that could have been meant and in that case, the burden is yours to demonstrate such.

I think that at the very least the fundamentalist view, though ridiculous in its naivete, is at least honest in its interpretation and so I think that it is your burden to explain why it should not be taken at face value. Although I am not so sure anymore that your view is not a fundamentalist view when it comes Genesis at least.