Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Oh, what a smorgasbord!
And at least one more (anon) who missed the satirical irony of the previous post. We'll get to that.
Thanks to Kyle who has stepped in to aid my aching fingers.
Paul C said:
Any moral statements I make are subjective.
Yes, I know. It's been my point for posts and posts now.
You have never denied that this is the case
Exactly. I've affirmed it vigorously.
you only argue that you find subjective moral statements inadequate
Inadequate to prescribe or proscribe actions to anyone else. Such as raping children. You can't tell anyone whether that action is OK or not OK, they should or shouldn't.
So we can live quite happily by our positions, as JN has said, with subjective morals;
Well, you SAY you can, but I don't believe you. You slip into objective moral language so often that it's about the most obvious thing I've ever seen that you can't.
But that's never been my argument, so it doesn't matter to me whether you can or can't.
Genesis 3:22 states: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil", clearly indicating that, prior to eating the fruit of the tree, Adam and Eve did not know good and evil.
And you didn't deal with the counterexamples I cited.
Unless you think the author had a brain aneurysm between 3:20 and 3:22, recovered several yrs later with no memory of what he wrote, and returned to continue on with no memory of the preceding, you need to find another interpretation. Your ineptitude is part of the point I was making. And it's not a knock on you - you're an atheist! Why *would* you learn proper biblical hermeneutics? I'm serious.
These are not predictions, they're merely observations and opinions.
Why aren't they predictions? Make your argument.
If humans are in fact inherently sinful, then it is not a prediction to say that humans are sinful
I said that FUTURE people will be sinful. That's a prediction. Of the future.
We're a pretty poor show
You mean, YOU THINK we are a poor show. You have no objective moral statement on this topic.
(See what I mean about your slipping?)
the JN said:
So I have not made any claims to moral fact.
Which was my point for this whole post.
no factually correct moral standards.
Right. So it's not a fact that raping a little girl is morally objectionable.
Is this not what I've been saying?
I was expressing the incompatibility of my opinions with Yahweh's supposed opinions.
And why should anyone care about your opinion on what YHWH said? I'm serious, not being sarcastic. You deny any rationally compelling fact that could persuade someone of the truth of your position; you deny any moral force to a statement such as this. Why even express it?
why even give us the opportunity to make a mess of it in the first place?
B/c He wanted to.
Lots of reasons, but that's the primary.
He is merciful, patient with sinners, hateful and wrathful to sin, compassionate, and salvific.
All of these attributes of God would have gone unexercised, unglorified, in a world without the Fall and Redemption.
So he gives A+E no capacity to understand good and bad
Which is not the case, so let's go ahead and lay this to rest.
places a tree that he doesn't want them to eat from right in the exact location they live,
Along with hundreds or thousands of other trees.
then is angered when they did something bad even though they had no way to actually know what good and bad were.
Rather, then is angered when they did something bad despite His direct command not to do it.
Rho says this because he has made up what other people think and since Rho is always right, it must be what they actually think.
Wow, look who read the first paragraph of the post and neglected to read the rest!
Good grief Rho, try listening to what people are saying instead of telling us what we must be thinking.
Try reading the post and THEN commenting on it.