Spearthrower wrote:Shaking one's keys at a polar bear will scare it away, because God gave man dominion over animals and installed fear of humans in them.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:
Do you think it's unreasonable for me to ask you for a couple of examples, seeing as this exchange is between you and I?

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:I've never heard a believer say anything that strikes me as crazy.

Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses.

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:I've never heard a believer say anything that strikes me as crazy.

Shaking one's keys at a polar bear will scare it away, because God gave man dominion over animals and installed fear of humans in them.

That's certifiably crazy as believing it while in the vicinity of a hungry polar bear will lead to death.

It certainly is. Hey check it out, an atheist once said to me in all seriousness that the reason why she doesn't believe in God is because if there was an creator of the universe - which we agreed would be uncreated if it did exist - then who created that creator?

Another atheist told me that the big bang is the origin of the universe. When I asked him what caused the big bang he said another big bang from another universe. I would have kept asking him what created that one, and so on, and so on, but then I remembered that man only lives for approximately three score and ten years, or so they say.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:I've never heard a believer say anything that strikes me as crazy.

Shaking one's keys at a polar bear will scare it away, because God gave man dominion over animals and installed fear of humans in them.

That's certifiably crazy as believing it while in the vicinity of a hungry polar bear will lead to death.

It certainly is. Hey check it out, an atheist once said to me in all seriousness that the reason why she doesn't believe in God is because if there was an creator of the universe - which we agreed would be uncreated if it did exist - then who created that creator?

Another atheist told me that the big bang is the origin of the universe. When I asked him what caused the big bang he said another big bang from another universe. I would have kept asking him what created that one, and so on, and so on, but then I remembered that man only lives for approximately three score and ten years, or so they say.

There's a thread for batty things atheists have said. This one is about crazy things theists have said.

Spearthrower wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:I've never heard a believer say anything that strikes me as crazy.

Well then: enjoy reading this thread.

I'll give you a bonus example.

Shaking one's keys at a polar bear will scare it away, because God gave man dominion over animals and installed fear of humans in them.

That's certifiably crazy as believing it while in the vicinity of a hungry polar bear will lead to death.

If God exists it is perfectly possible, as well as plausible. There are very good reasons for belief in God and the resurrection. But let me ask you because not a single atheist has been able to give an answer yet. What reasons do you have for believing Atheism is true? Why do you believe the universe is the way it is? How do you account for objective morality, freewill, the fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, and reason?

The dichotomy you propose only exists if the Christian espouses what is known as volunteerism and this view runs contrary to just about every major historical Christian teaching I am aware of.
In volunteerism, one would think that morality is arbitrarily determined by God. He just happens to like some things and dislike other things. That would be subjective, yes.
However, Christians have long held a very different view which to me seems clearly expressed in the Bible and makes more sense philosophically as well if we think of God as being a “maximally great being.”
This view is called essentialism - which affirms that God’s commands are rooted in His very nature or essence. That is to say that what he commands as being good or bad is not arbitrary but tied to his very nature - an essential property if you will.
If God lacked these properties he would not be God in the same way that a molecule is not water if it lacks a hydrogen atom. It’s necessary that a water molecule includes a hydrogen atom - and it’s necessary that a maximally great being (aka, God) would have essential properties such as justice, truthfulness, compassion, etc.
In the essentialists view, there is no dichotomy. Rather, divine commands are not subjective or arbitrarily determined by God, they are simply expressions or descriptions of his essential properties. What conforms to the properties being good and what opposes those properties being evil.

No dichotomy exists.
It's easy to understand if:
1. you first look at the definition of objective:
"Not influenced by personal feelings and/or opinions"
2. You read in the bible where you learn the objective standard for what is just and right is not at all grounded in God's personal feelings and/or opinions but rather in his nature.
Therefore, the Christian standard for what is just and right is objective.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Argument via assertionist philosophy:

The dichotomy you propose only exists if the Christian espouses what is known as volunteerism and this view runs contrary to just about every major historical Christian teaching I am aware of.
In volunteerism, one would think that morality is arbitrarily determined by God. He just happens to like some things and dislike other things. That would be subjective, yes.
However, Christians have long held a very different view which to me seems clearly expressed in the Bible and makes more sense philosophically as well if we think of God as being a “maximally great being.”
This view is called essentialism - which affirms that God’s commands are rooted in His very nature or essence. That is to say that what he commands as being good or bad is not arbitrary but tied to his very nature - an essential property if you will.
If God lacked these properties he would not be God in the same way that a molecule is not water if it lacks a hydrogen atom. It’s necessary that a water molecule includes a hydrogen atom - and it’s necessary that a maximally great being (aka, God) would have essential properties such as justice, truthfulness, compassion, etc.
In the essentialists view, there is no dichotomy. Rather, divine commands are not subjective or arbitrarily determined by God, they are simply expressions or descriptions of his essential properties. What conforms to the properties being good and what opposes those properties being evil.

Svartalf wrote:Begging pardon, but the moron in previous post had me at first sentence, is the wall of text below it actually worth reading?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Argument via assertionist philosophy:

The dichotomy you propose only exists if the Christian espouses what is known as volunteerism and this view runs contrary to just about every major historical Christian teaching I am aware of.
In volunteerism, one would think that morality is arbitrarily determined by God. He just happens to like some things and dislike other things. That would be subjective, yes.
However, Christians have long held a very different view which to me seems clearly expressed in the Bible and makes more sense philosophically as well if we think of God as being a “maximally great being.”
This view is called essentialism - which affirms that God’s commands are rooted in His very nature or essence. That is to say that what he commands as being good or bad is not arbitrary but tied to his very nature - an essential property if you will.
If God lacked these properties he would not be God in the same way that a molecule is not water if it lacks a hydrogen atom. It’s necessary that a water molecule includes a hydrogen atom - and it’s necessary that a maximally great being (aka, God) would have essential properties such as justice, truthfulness, compassion, etc.
In the essentialists view, there is no dichotomy. Rather, divine commands are not subjective or arbitrarily determined by God, they are simply expressions or descriptions of his essential properties. What conforms to the properties being good and what opposes those properties being evil.

"Just one example: billions of celestial bodies in perfect movement, why don't they crash into each other if there is no Creator to guide them?"