|
|
USER COMMENTS BY BY YOUR STANDARDS, NOT ELECT |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 4 · Found: 158 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
8/27/08 1:21 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Neil wrote: BYSNE, my hasty reply is that "good" either has an ethical sense opposing "evil", or the sense that it is something that serves God's eternal purposes. Genesis 1 calls the Creation "good", yet this would be absurd if "good" here was ethical. So "evil" could be "good," if "good" here means my 2nd definition and not the 1st, which would be a wicked, blatant contradiction. I'm shooting from the hip here; I haven't pondered this question long enough to know if my response is solid. Neil, Provocative topic and interesting comments. I will do some more thinking about it as well. |
|
|
8/26/08 7:48 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Neil wrote: BYSNE, I don't see how "God is, in a sense, beyond good and evil" follows from my posts. And what do you mean by "beyond?" Yes, I consider "ordain" a synonym for "cause." hidemi, I think further replies to you would serve no purpose. I took it from your post that God is capable of causing any act, for good or ill, yet nevertheless it could never be called a sin. At this point it became unclear to me what you were saying. Is this because God's actions aren't "constrained by" sin? By the Bible? If God can cause evil and yet it not be called a sin merely because God caused it, it seems hard to call what God caused evil in any meaningful sense. Nor would it be good. The predicates seemingly to fail to apply. God would just "do", and the notions of Good and Evil would be irrelevant, precisely because those can only apply to creatures like angels and humans. |
|
|
4/23/08 12:45 AM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Neil wrote: Discovery Institute's "Privileged Planet" is indeed nicely made & even encouraging, but in endorsing the Anthropic Principle as it does, it in effect repeats the untenable Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Even if one concedes that the universe has design & purpose, it does not logically follow that the Scriptural Trinity made it - perhaps Zeus or Voltaire's "committee of gods" did. Thomas Aquinas et al. couldn't avoid begging the question here. Apologetics has been hindered by use of this argument. Now it may be acceptable if one uses it ad-hominem - assume your opponent's probablistic empirical principles for the sake of argument. Even if you don't agree with this, it's best to be aware of objections *before* encountering a well-briefed atheist. Out of curiosity, Neil, are you following Gordon Clark's rebuttal of the cosmological proof for God's existence? I believe you mentioned him a few years ago. I know you're talking about the teleological proof here, however. |
|
|
4/11/08 10:25 PM |
By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
bernie wrote: This is not a purifying purgatory to see whether you make it, no where in scripture is purgatory found, or taught by God. Bernie: Take a look at 1030 and then read 1031. Next, look at 1033. You'll see that it's not a matter of "seeing if you make it" nor is it a place for second chances. At least you looked in the Catechism to see what the Catholics actually believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|