Originally posted by Anomaly
View Post
The idea of human goodness being outside of God was never put forth. Goodness proceeds from the thoughts and acts of people relative to the value content of the soul. I take good to be the logical product of the true. Since truth endues the essence of all creation until it's fragmentally falsified by human choice, the good produced by people--though produced from an inherent possession of truth in essence--is from God. Please try to avoid any more strawman arguments.
Since you tacitly admit the passages contain meaning beyond their literal sense alone…
…and profess a desire for intellectually honest discussion…
…Let’s try this again:
…and profess a desire for intellectually honest discussion…
…Let’s try this again:
1. [u]Gen 18 is a metaphoric account[/] teaching at least a two-part spiritual principle.
a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.
b. A principle of multiplicity of value components is revealed in the Gen 18 account as the organizing method by which the perfection of God’s justice is maintained.
2. Abraham’s words in vv. 23 & 25 confirms #1a
3. Gen 18 and Gen 19:1-19 confirms #1b
Conclusion: Spiritual principles a and b combine to suggest that God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.
I assume that unless corrected the underlined portion of point 1 is not contested, only the remaining text in point #1.
1. Do you agree or disagree that God only destroys prescriptive, spiritual or moral badness, never goodness? If you disagree, please provide evidence from reason and/or Scripture.
Being killed is not the same thing as being destroyed.
Multiplicity is the property of being multiple. Lot, his family and numerous (v. 4) Sodomites are involved in the Gen 18-19 story.
2.. Do you agree or disagree that this mixture of people can rightly be referenced as a multiplicity? Please provide reasons if you disagree.
2.. Do you agree or disagree that this mixture of people can rightly be referenced as a multiplicity? Please provide reasons if you disagree.
Abraham’s words in Gen 18:23 & 25:
"Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
3. Do you agree or disagree that these words confirm Point1a? If you disagree, please explain why.
"Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
3. Do you agree or disagree that these words confirm Point1a? If you disagree, please explain why.
Abraham identifies two moral or prescriptive classes of persons in v. 23: "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike…”
4. Do you agree or disagree that the terms righteous and unrighteous are morally or prescriptively evaluative terms? If not, please provide arguments for your denial.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the terms righteous and unrighteous are morally or prescriptively evaluative terms? If not, please provide arguments for your denial.
This is a popular notion in evangelical circles, but it’s incoherent.
Hatred is a cognitive function.
Flesh in a literal sense has no cognitive function except to materialists.
The tension is resolved by moving “flesh” from material to intangible, as many Christians do.
Here, “spirit and flesh” [good/bad, true/false, etc.] refer to contrary value components in spirit or soul and the tension is resolved.
As far as I can see, comparisons of spirit/flesh as true and false components in essence can be appropriately read into all verses in which this contradistinction is made in the Bible without contradiction.
This is amusing, have to give you a point for zeal. The text this refers to was simply an observation, not a proposition. Fallacies refer to arguments.
And this despite the fact I explained in an early post that I would be using the term “metaphor” in its more common usage, to indicate the broad signification of passages that are representational in nature. We do this for at least two reasons; 1) it’s cumbersome and unnecessary to have to carefully define each type of representation when discussing the highly figurative Bible, and, 2) a considerable variety of the definitions of representational language types are found among the intelligentsia probably due, in part at least, to semantic overlap between terms. You seem unaware that latitude in discussion relating to emblematic language is the norm.
Again with the liar accusation?
Another dare? The banning thing wasn’t supposed to be a literal allegation, it was an amusing overstatement of an underlying truth lots of folks will recognize from here and other boards.
I really admire your gnawing and ripping of my posts to find any little thing you can carp on. Very Christlike.
My experience is that posters who find themselves lacking in valid arguments often fall into quoting every little snippet of their opponents’ posts they can find to respond to with typically one-sentence accusations, trite commentary insults and contemptuous remarks, probably to hide their own inability to mount reasonable arguments.
Presumably these folks think if they “drown out” their more astute adversaries it will draw attention away from their own unfitness for rational debate. I’m sure glad there’s none of that in this thread.
Comment