Remind me again of the reasons behind "absolute right and wrong" questions

[Guest end3]

6 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

But you said that it was God the Father who was in Eden.

 

So, now you're agreeing with the Prof, when he said?

 

"Therefore:  Jesus planted the garden of Eden, created Adam and Eve, the tree of knowledge, and the Serpent."

Yes, I believe that would follow.

[LogicalFallacy]

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

Why does God kick them out, why atonement?  If there are rules, then this pretty much dictates an absolute.  Commands, not suggestions. 

 

And if we are big on pretending and knowing, non-believers don't pretend to have a more complete field of vision than they do?

 

 

 

Commands that are broken and altered, which means they are changing not absolute.

 

Some non believers do take their claims too far to the point they can't substantiate them, but why attempt to deflect the conversation? The fact some non believers might push things too far does not detract from the point that believers on the whole to claim to "know".

 

Coming back to the subject of absolute right and wrong (Absolute morality), can you show how we can get absolute morality from the bible? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Do I really need to go back through the entire process of demonstrating to you that Adam and Eve did not have:

1 hour ago, end3 said:

perfect free will without initial influence.

 

How many threads have you and I committed over the years to this very subject?  "God is a Liar",  "God's Mighty Plan of Salvation", "God's Secret Law in Eden"--that's three I can think of right off the top of my head.

 

But the question isn't about free will, or being made in god's image.  The question is: Do you contend that Adam and Eve were created "perfect".

[Guest end3]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do I really need to go back through the entire process of demonstrating to you that Adam and Eve did not have:

 

How many threads have you and I committed over the years to this very subject?  "God is a Liar",  "God's Mighty Plan of Salvation", "God's Secret Law in Eden"--that's three I can think of right off the top of my head.

 

But the question isn't about free will, or being made in god's image.  The question is: Do you contend that Adam and Eve were created "perfect".

No, they are not God.  And there is the language...."lower than".  And humans being "changed".  So if this is the case, and God has a box A that absolute resides, and has a box B where humanity resides, who are lower by definition than box A, then why must God instantaneously define box B to be box A? 

[LogicalFallacy]

So End3 to clarify your position:

 

The only thing that is perfect is God, and Eden (and all that goes with it) was not created perfect (Basically Genesis 1 and 2 was not perfect?)

[sdelsolray]

Plato wannabe.

 

[Guest end3]

40 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Plato wannabe.

 

We could have been great, we could have been a contender...

[Guest end3]

57 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So End3 to clarify your position:

 

The only thing that is perfect is God, and Eden (and all that goes with it) was not created perfect (Basically Genesis 1 and 2 was not perfect?)

Almost, for some reason my mind puts Eden synonymous to Heaven.  So I see Eden as absolute as well.

[LogicalFallacy]

21 minutes ago, end3 said:

Almost, for some reason my mind puts Eden synonymous to Heaven.  So I see Eden as absolute as well.

 

Eh ok, well I'll see where TRP takes it from here, I've already intruded into his line of questioning enough already.

 

End3 can you answer my post #52 please?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, if Adam and Eve were not created perfect to begin with, then from what state did they "fall"?  Some less-than-perfect state of perfection?  How could they have "fallen" if they were already down?  How could Adam and Even been anything but imperfect, if they were created that way to begin with?  And what is the significance of the fruit of the tree, if they were already imperfect?  What would that knowledge have taken away from them, if they were already flawed?  Precisely what is the point of redeeming us from the very state in which god created us?  

 

In short, if Adam and Eve were anything less than perfect from the beginning, then they are blameless for the consequences of their imperfections.  Without a starting point of perfection, "sin" is meaningless.  The guilt goes back to god, who created them imperfectly; and who obviously had some kind of diabolical plan for having done so.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Where'd you get off to, End3?  You out trying to find an absolute that God hasn't broken?

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Where'd you get off to, End3?  You out trying to find an absolute that God hasn't broken?

Don't know what you would wish me to say Prof.  Given the story, one can guess that humanity has more properties than much of creation and speculatively less than others.  Do we get miffed at our place in the mix or do we support life. 

 

Btw, you seem really stuck on one side of this theory: an absolute might exist in box A but you are miffed that box B can't see the absolute.  Doesn't science point to an absolute?  Which makes sense you are a science guy....and a good one.

 

Edit:  Matter of fact, if box B is a subset of box A, then to understand the relationship, we sure might look at the interface, the Face, i.e. Jesus. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, end3 said:

Don't know what you would wish me to say Prof. 

As I see it, there are two things you could say: 1. "I am not able to think of a single absolute that god himself isn't guilty of breaking."  Or, 2.  "Here is an absolute that god himself hasn't broken...[insert absolute here]."

[Guest end3]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I see it, there are two things you could say: 1. "I am not able to think of a single absolute that god himself isn't guilty of breaking."  Or, 2.  "Here is an absolute that god himself hasn't broken...[insert absolute here]."

I've tried to explain the way I see it.  Sorry if I wasn't able to make it clear.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, end3 said:

Btw, you seem really stuck on one side of this theory: an absolute might exist in box A but you are miffed that box B can't see the absolute.  Doesn't science point to an absolute?  Which makes sense you are a science guy....and a good one.

 

You seem to be stuck on misunderstanding my point.  IF there exists an absolute in box A, then the creator of both the absolute and the box should be capable of upholding said absolute, especially if he expects the absolute to be upheld by the people he blames for being put, by him, in box B.  The problem is that, despite our best efforts, we have yet to identify a single absolute in box A which the creator hasn't broken.

 

Does science point to an absolute?  I don't know that it does; but, it doesn't claim to either.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, end3 said:

Doesn't science point to an absolute? 

 

Not that I'm aware of. I haven't heard a decent scientist yet proclaim that x is absolute and won't be changed. You are the one claiming absolute not science.

 

The only thing you have explained so far is a theoretical set of boxes - you have not been able to show how this applies to our reality. It's just a concept with no backing.

 

Coming back to my question, can you show using the bible an absolute right and wrong? Yes, no? Examples?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

Edit:  Matter of fact, if box B is a subset of box A, then to understand the relationship, we sure might look at the interface, the Face, i.e. Jesus. 

But we've already established that jesus is god, meaning he created box A, and the subsequent subset.  The cards are stacked in his favor; yet he still can not maintain the absolutes he expects of us.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, end3 said:

I've tried to explain the way I see it.  Sorry if I wasn't able to make it clear.  Thx.

Oh, you've made it clear.  Maybe not what you were trying to explain; but you've definitely made it clear.  

 

I don't think you really understand yourself what you believe, which is, I'd wager, the reason you find such difficulty in explaining it to anyone else's satisfaction.  It is difficult to explain your beliefs to anyone else's satisfaction, when the explanation isn't even up to your own satisfaction.  You're probably not ready to admit it to yourself yet; but that is what is really happening here.  You're holding on to beliefs that you know make no sense, simply because the alternative is still unthinkable.  I get it; I've been there.

 

god is love; love is an absolute.  Love is the antithesis of genocide; but god commands genocide.  Love is the antithesis of theft, rape, slavery, murder, and all the other commandments; but god still commanded, and forbade, each of them.  You can't reconcile these two opposing absolutes.  You can't explain to me how they both make sense; because there is a huge part of your rational mind that knows they don't make sense.  Either love is not an absolute; or god is not love.  god cannot be love and act contrary to what love is.  god cannot be an absolute and act contrary to the absolute.  god, therefore, cannot exist, in the form you in which understand him.  But, neither can you exist without the understanding of god you think you have; because you have confused your understanding for an absolute, when, in reality, understanding is fluid, dynamic.  Your faith is not an absolute, End3; it could change at any time.

[yunea]

Oh woah this thread really took off, didn't it!

 

The conversation with the Young Earther is going slowly - but I now asked him to define "absolute wrong" for me because he keeps asking me if rape is such a thing, even after I replied "I don't wish rape on anyone".

 

Also he asked me how do I know 2+1 isn't 5. Well, now. I've studied quite a bit of university level maths and have gone to the very core concepts of it, how you create mathematical axioms and such. I'm pretty sure I have no clue what he was actually trying to ask me. I answered the way I know mathematicians think about it. I'll see what he does with it.

 

Someone (Redneck Prof?) asked me if he's an Irish Pentecostal. Well, the country doesn't match.  But he's very judgement oriented and talks about obeying commands as one part of salvation. There's also some interesting talk in his Twitter about Big Bang, him asking whether it really makes sense that something came from nothing and then made such complicated systems without a creator. People are getting frustrated and calling him names over it. I'm not partaking in that one, though if he asks me, I'll reply with what we know of probability - if given infinite time, everything that can happen, eventually happens. Including a this kind of universe. Given a time less than infinity but still extremely long (assuming there has been a some kind of beginning of time), there's still plenty of time for interesting things to happen. Such as this universe.

 

I'll keep it polite. I bet he's glad about the angry ones.

[yunea]

BTW, has someone somewhere compiled a good list of God breaking his own ten commandments, or commanding someone to do so, in the Bible?  

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh, you've made it clear.  Maybe not what you were trying to explain; but you've definitely made it clear.  

 

I don't think you really understand yourself what you believe, which is, I'd wager, the reason you find such difficulty in explaining it to anyone else's satisfaction.  It is difficult to explain your beliefs to anyone else's satisfaction, when the explanation isn't even up to your own satisfaction.  You're probably not ready to admit it to yourself yet; but that is what is really happening here.  You're holding on to beliefs that you know make no sense, simply because the alternative is still unthinkable.  I get it; I've been there.

 

god is love; love is an absolute.  Love is the antithesis of genocide; but god commands genocide.  Love is the antithesis of theft, rape, slavery, murder, and all the other commandments; but god still commanded, and forbade, each of them.  You can't reconcile these two opposing absolutes.  You can't explain to me how they both make sense; because there is a huge part of your rational mind that knows they don't make sense.  Either love is not an absolute; or god is not love.  god cannot be love and act contrary to what love is.  god cannot be an absolute and act contrary to the absolute.  god, therefore, cannot exist, in the form you in which understand him.  But, neither can you exist without the understanding of god you think you have; because you have confused your understanding for an absolute, when, in reality, understanding is fluid, dynamic.  Your faith is not an absolute, End3; it could change at any time.

Look, you are asking me to come up with an viable mechanism and conclusion to this scenario when the entire history of humanity has yet to make these assertions with high confidence or any confidence for that matter.  What I am suggesting is inside of box A is box B.  Where they are not in union, there is an absolute condition.  Where the ARE in union, there is a combination of.....with evidence IN the Bible to suggest this...i.e. the OT God exacting absolutism on the masses, demanding atonement, Jesus himself and the proposed Holy Spirit.  Given the mechanics of the Interface, Jesus, we will apparently see the reunification of box A and box B.  The absolute demands some mechanism to resolve the competing "species" within box B.  And you seem to think the exacting of that mechanism was evil from the inception. 

 

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

How can anything be an absolute if it is broken?

[Guest end3]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

How can anything be an absolute if it is broken?

I think the wording is "reborn" and "reborn into".  Per our conversation, reborn into the interface, the perfection, the original.  What comes to mind with respect to science is all the advancements being made in gene therapy.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Is perfection an absolute?  And, if so, is god absolutely perfect, or a perfect absolute?

[Guest end3]

36 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Is perfection an absolute?  And, if so, is god absolutely perfect, or a perfect absolute?

Yes, I would think perfection an absolute.   Would think absolutely perfect bc a perfect absolute would not offer variance...