A bizarre definition of morality from the guy who loves to tell us he's more moral than the God whom he supposedly doesn't believe exists

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Finally, an intelligent question.
Gosh, well done for recognising one.
I can, but first you must stop your lying and admit you only see men commiting evil, for starters. That men starve children. And you blaming God is a tacit admission of His existence.
You spelt "committing" wrong. Honestly, the educational standards in America.
Once you can think clearly, we can discuss further.
You haven't started yet Jimbo. You never do.
Otherwise, just keep trollin', pal.
Just following your fine example.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Gosh, well done for recognising one.

You spelt "committing" wrong. Honestly, the educational standards in America.

You haven't started yet Jimbo. You never do.

Just following your fine example.
If you are gonna play the game you need wit and style, and you have neither. Just anger.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
If you are gonna play the game you need wit and style, and you have neither. Just anger.
You are so obviously the angry one, gratuitously trying to wind people up. Shame you're not better at it, maybe you could pray to Jesus to make you even less like Him.
 

Furion

Well-known member
You are so obviously the angry one, gratuitously trying to wind people up. Shame you're not better at it. Maybe you could pray to Jesus to make you even less like Him.
Ahhh, that's so cute when you weaponize Christ.

I almost shed a tear.
 

4thrite

Member
Think for a minute...no human father would cause suffering and pain to his children in order to relieve their suffering and pain. Would you do that? If not, then why claim God did that exact thing?
Many parents do in fact need to cause their children to undergo sometimes extremely painful medical remedies in order to relieve their suffering and pain. It is generally considered reasonable and loving to do so and neglectful not to do so.
Did you ever consider that Paul had another idea when he wrote the passage and you misunderstood his meaning?
Well the passage is fairly straightforward but I am always open to the possibility that I have misunderstood. Did you have another take on this passage you would like me to hear?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Many parents do in fact need to cause their children to undergo sometimes extremely painful medical remedies in order to relieve their suffering and pain. It is generally considered reasonable and loving to do so and neglectful not to do so.
Precisely!

This is what we refer to as needed or needful harm

Human beings, because we are limited in what we can and cannot do, oftentimes are required to inflict harm upon others in order to provide them with a greater benefit - i.e. painful medical procedures that prevent a greater pain and/or death down the line, etc

Here's the thing, though - God is not limited
God is limitless
There is nothing that God cannot do
{except for act contrary to His nature and/or possibly perform logical inconsistencies like creating square circles}

When God inflicts harm it as always, by definition, needless because He never, ever is required to inflict harm in order to provide a greater benefit

God can ALWAYS provide the greater benefit WITHOUT the harm!
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Correct. Impersonal concrete nouns can be instantaneously created by God. Examples:

Instant horse!
Instant water!
Instant coffee!
Instant planet!
Instant universe!

Personal abstractions cannot. Examples:

Instant wisdom
Instant long suffering
Instant longevity
Instant victory
Instant Ennobling

Time is required.

Oh, and also:

Instant Treeplant being capable of understanding basic stuff like this
Alright, Mr. biblical literalist, please provide scripture saying that impersonal concrete nouns can be instantly created by the same God with whom, according to scripture, "all things are possible", but personal abstractions cannot

I'll wait here...
 

4thrite

Member
Precisely!

This is what we refer to as needed or needful harm

Human beings, because we are limited in what we can and cannot do, oftentimes are required to inflict harm upon others in order to provide them with a greater benefit - i.e. painful medical procedures that prevent a greater pain and/or death down the line, etc

Here's the thing, though - God is not limited
My reference to the need for humans to sometime cause pain in order to alleviate pain was in response to the poster who said that no human father would ever subject his children to suffering.
God is limitless
There is nothing that God cannot do
{except for act contrary to His nature and/or possibly perform logical inconsistencies like creating square circles}

When God inflicts harm it as always, by definition, needless because He never, ever is required to inflict harm in order to provide a greater benefit

God can ALWAYS provide the greater benefit WITHOUT the harm!
Yours is a belief about God that is contrary to the belief that is espoused at Romans 8:20-22 wherein it acknowledges that it was God who subjected his human creation to futility and a groaning in pain together, but that he did so for a purpose namely, that his human creation will be set free from corruption and death and come to have the glorious freedom of the children of God. In other words, not needless.
john
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Yours is a belief about God that is contrary to the belief that is espoused at Romans 8:20-22 wherein it acknowledges that it was God who subjected his human creation to futility and a groaning in pain together, but that he did so for a purpose namely, that his human creation will be set free from corruption and death and come to have the glorious freedom of the children of God. In other words, not needless.
Which is better:

1. Have your creation experience suffering in order to be set free from corruption, or
2. Not allow the corruption in the first place

?

Is it better for me to treat the stab wound I just gave you, or not to stab you at all...?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
My reference to the need for humans to sometime cause pain in order to alleviate pain was in response to the poster who said that no human father would ever subject his children to suffering.
The point that docphin5 was making is that considering that no piddly human father in his right mind would ever inflict needless harm upon his child - it is beyond ridiculous to claim that a perfect Father, such as God, would ever do so...

Yours is a belief about God that is contrary to the belief that is espoused at Romans 8:20-22 wherein it acknowledges that it was God who subjected his human creation to futility and a groaning in pain together, but that he did so for a purpose namely, that his human creation will be set free from corruption and death and come to have the glorious freedom of the children of God.
You misunderstand me

I am not disagreeing that God consciously and purposefully subjected His creation {us} to "futility and a groaning in pain together" for the purpose of setting us free from corruption and death

What I am saying is that God COULD HAVE set us free from corruption and death WITHOUT subjecting us to futility and pain

That He consciously and purposefully chose to "set us free" by means of inflicting harm upon us anyway was NEEDLESS and to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
Which is better:

1. Have your creation experience suffering in order to be set free from corruption, or
2. Not allow the corruption in the first place

?

Is it better for me to treat the stab wound I just gave you, or not to stab you at all...?
The mind set is baffling...

No way will I offer praise to the person who puts out my housefire when it is this same person who set my house on fire in the 1st place!!
 

4thrite

Member
The point that docphin5 was making is that considering that no piddly human father in his right mind would ever inflict needless harm upon his child - it is beyond ridiculous to claim that a perfect Father, such as God, would ever do so...
Actually what he said was: no human father would subject his children to pain and suffering in order to alleviate their pain and suffering. My response was to rebut that claim.
You misunderstand me

I am not disagreeing that God consciously and purposefully subjected His creation {us} to "futility and a groaning in pain together" for the purpose of setting us free from corruption and death

What I am saying is that God COULD HAVE set us free from corruption and death WITHOUT subjecting us to futility and pain

That He consciously and purposefully chose to "set us free" by means of inflicting harm upon us anyway was NEEDLESS and to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
I understand the nuance. But I wonder if he could have done as you suggest and (at the same time) rebut the claim that we are better off living independently of him, because that was the claim that set the human family on the course that it is on down to this day. And, if so, how?

john
 
Top