Thanks for the link. I heard the anecdote in a lecture that he gave that was published on Youtube.

Frankly, it sounds like a true story (to me). When I see Professor Kreeft in Heaven, I'll try to remember to ask him if the story was embellished or not.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the "Look at the trees!" argument. Please say more.

I've heard testimonies that reveal an evolution (so to speak) of an individual moving from atheism to agnosticism to deism to theism to Christianity.

Creationism is often a gateway to Christianity.

Duly noted.

That is an excellent question! I will endeavor to answer that question when I get more time later next week.

after coming across alot of stuff in the world from freemasons, to satanic bible, new age spiritualism, 911 conspiracy's, there is in fact a God. then you read the bible and it describes people in the world today. The bible talks about someone like Joel Osteen and describes him. not really in a good light as such but he is suppose to be doing what hes doing. It talks about people who run hollywood and describes them. again the bankers are suppose to be doing what they doing. conspiracy theorists like david icke or alex jones are doing what they suppose to be doing. satanists like alistar Crowley are doing what they were mearnt to do when they were alive. You can't really understand it at all without something and will be blinded totally even if you read the verses. You might as well read it backwards because you just won't understand it even if your told.

Jesus Christ is God.

Well that lasted less than a month.

Should we really gloss over the "not coveting thy neighbor's slave" thingy. Obviously, the Bible is infallible. Which means the concept of owning a slave is not just allowed, but should not be accepted as so normal, that you should not feel jealous that your neighbor owns more of them.

If you take the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God you are evil, by definition.

Hi, OP.

I believe the post you shared above was from the P&S Forum.

I was adopting the terminology already being employed in that thread (and a terminology I had myself been using all the time in that Forum), and didn't want to create yet another terminology derail.

I often get stuck finding a better word that collectively encompasses the Biblical notions of sin, righteousness, obedience, etc.

Appreciate your "eagle eye".

Maybe with some effort ill find a term actually in my Bible that collectively expresses those ideas. If you know of one, please let me know. Thanks.

You have a different definition of evil than mine.

"Thy will be done...." is something like obedience. But maybe a term less deprecatory sounding and more in line with what most theists believe: In harmony with God's will. I think that better captures the volitional element as well. Plus it'll give you a blocker for the problem of evil without sounding like theists are just blindly following orders.

I don't find obedience as a bad term. It is difficult to adhere from my personal ecxperience. I think that the longer you are in a relationship with God the easier it is to obey, and so the more obedient you can become.

I like the point about being in line with God's will.

As in: "Thy will be done. If thou choose to kill every fetus and child on earth, I support this as moral, holy, righteous and loving."

And [Job] said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. - Job 1:21

Yes so if he created all and is omniscient he certainly has the ability and option to destroy any part of it. The question that you can't answer so glibly is why is his solution the same as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc?

Not can he do it, but why does he want to do it? Why does he want to kill every child and fetus on earth as a demonstration of love? The only defense is he doesn't exist and it's a religious myth. THAT makes perfect sense, whereas slaughter as holy, righteous, loving ... is way more than a stretch.

Carl Jung is asked: "Do you believe in god?"


My take is that he regarded the formal religion's gods as stone cold projections. I believe he came right out and said this in, "Answer to Job," as only he could. The comment he made that is often cited is a little tricky as to what he meant, but very important. When answering this question: "Do you believe there is a god?" ... Jung took a step back I believe, and addressed something else. He said, "I don't believe, I know." This was a general statement about epistemology. (I believe his exact quote was: "I don't believe a thing. I know it.") As in, "I don't go around believing in things. I either think there is reason to consider it knowledge or I don't." So, putting it together, my opinion of what he meant is this .. conventional gods are manufactured by man, I don't operate on the faith standard, and yes there is a source that is exceedingly mysterious and mystical the seed of which is in our psyche.

Could be. But it also could be the statement of a mystic, which I suspect. For mystics, to 'know' means to experience, not knowledge or inference. The latter better fitting the notion of justified true beliefs that he may have denied holding in regard to the question.

Complex Question Fallacy. DUCY?

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Pretty sure that's not the only defense.

God loves justice and He loves mercy. You can freely choose which demonstration of God's love to accept.

I think God loves Love more. In fact I don't think God loves the items you mentioned as anything other than a stopgap because without the fall neither justice nor mercy would obtain because neither injustice nor cruelty would obtain.

I get your point but it's more a point for Abrahamic religions et al in general. For Christians, imo, it's pretty much "Love one another...." and "Judge not....." full stop, with the rest of the NT being commentary to that. At the end of the day, while fighting evil sounds good, if people genuinely believe in an all-good ontology, fighting evil isn't fighting it; it's creating it (or rather the appearance of it since evil is not real).

The objective understanding of God associated with goodness, justice, love etc is true but so is the subjective experience of God in the Book of Job. What is a higher truth than either of those (objective, subjective) is to hold both simultaneously as Job does and as Jesus does in his judgment of God on the cross (why have you forsaken me?).

There is danger in denying evil and the subjective since to deny those is to deny the desire for the Kingdom of Heaven as the highest desire that it is. This is the sin of the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Because he has made the objective version of God total, he fails to see, as the younger brother sees, that he is being lied to and guarded from the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus talks about one becoming two and then two becoming one. To follow Christ is to become split and wrestle with the tension of holding the paradox. There was a reason why emphasizing the oneness was necessary two thousand years ago and so it’s not a surprise that the idea of splitting into two was suppressed, but it’s an undeniable part of the story.

No ... the wages of being human is death, including for children and fetuses. ALL OF THEM, once upon a time. And that is a-okay with anybody adhering to this doctrine. Go ahead and kill them all, it's a function of grand love. I believe, I believe, I believe.

Why not just admit the thing breaks down upon inspection? It's one of the religions. When it attempted to declare itself the only valid one it was a pure market share move.

<Wrong thread>

This seems to imply that you are a moral nihilist - that you don't believe in morality as I'm using the term here. That is, you don't think there is any good reason to follow ethical rules for their own sake. You deny this however. So what is your view? Is there something about the act of murdering small children for fun that makes it wrong to do, or is it just that God told us not to do so?

I do not currently believe that there is any good reason to follow ethical rules for their own sake. So, I suspect that would make me a moral nihilist by your definition.

Could you please provide an example of an "ethical rule" that you believe that all persons ought to adhere to for its own sake. Thanks.

Don't kill people purely for your own pleasure.

If there are in fact people who get pleasure from killing people and refrain from doing it not because they are afraid of punishment, but rather simply because it is "wrong", then those people are superior to people who don't kill people because it is not pleasurable to them but would kill if it was, and they knew they could get away with it.

"Superior to" wouldn't be my choice of words if you're referring to a lack of self-control since a genetic component may be in play, leading off into social Darwinism. On the other hand, something like, "temperance is superior to normative hedonism," probably wouldn't raise many eyebrows (since most people already believe that).