Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    An MRI can't measure pain.
    False

    This too
    Last edited by Whateverman; 07-30-2020, 05:16 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      I would think that if a person/persons are in pain and that pain correlates with the active areas of the brain, then you can pretty much measure pain. You may not be able to detail the source or intensity of the pain, like a broken leg, but the patient can inform you of that.
      MRIs won't show that. And pain and suffering are subjective values. I may think a toothache is an annoyance while you might be screaming for it to stop.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
        That's an fMRI, not an MRI. And the interpretation of it is still subjective. As is pain itself. As I said earlier, what I might consider an annoyance, someone else might consider suffering. This is why the nurses always ask you to rate your pain on a scale of 1 to 10. To get an idea of how much pain you are in.

        Also believing a society would routinely use an fMRI to measure someone's pain is ridiculous.

        And finally, your whole idea of using pain and suffering as a test is a subjective idea in the first place, it is not objective morality as I said earlier. Objective morality is "something is right or wrong no matter who believes it."

        Just coming up with a way to measure pain doesn't make it objective morality.

        Comment


        • #64
          Why is pain wrong? A two year old child might think the shot they got at the doctor was unneeded suffering. A toddler does not understand that vaccines help prevent them from getting a potentially serious illness. We are not omniscient. We lack the perspective to know for sure if there was really no other option but to allow suffering. What human agents plan for evil, God may plan to bring good out of it. Like what happened nearly two thousand years ago on Calvary! Jesus didn't deserve to be crucified. He went through the shame and suffereing, so that anyonw who believes in Him may have everlasting life with Him!
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            That's an fMRI, not an MRI. And the interpretation of it is still subjective. As is pain itself. As I said earlier, what I might consider an annoyance, someone else might consider suffering. This is why the nurses always ask you to rate your pain on a scale of 1 to 10. To get an idea of how much pain you are in.

            Also believing a society would routinely use an fMRI to measure someone's pain is ridiculous.

            And finally, your whole idea of using pain and suffering as a test is a subjective idea in the first place, it is not objective morality as I said earlier. Objective morality is "something is right or wrong no matter who believes it."

            Just coming up with a way to measure pain doesn't make it objective morality.
            If, according to Wm's hypothesis unnecessary suffering defines the objective standard of immorality, then the severity of the pain is irrelevant. If the cause of the pain is intentional, then the resulting unnecessary suffering would be the objective immorality brought about by the causer/agent of that unnecessary suffering.

            Comment


            • #66
              And the perps get in big trouble. Incredibly humiliating trouble.
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                And the perps get in big trouble. Incredibly humiliating trouble.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Evildoers face consequences. Those who exalt themselves, will be humbled; those who humble themselves will be exalted. Jerks that hurt others will answer for their actions. Even if they are a Christian.
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                    Evildoers face consequences. Those who exalt themselves, will be humbled; those who humble themselves will be exalted. Jerks that hurt others will answer for their actions. Even if they are a Christian.
                    You mean, if not in this world, then in the next. But first off, according to christianity that's not necessarily true. So long as you believe in God you are given a get out of jail card in exchange for your belief. So, not necessarily ultimate justice which is your other argument. Christianity has very little to do with ultimate justice, it has to do with conformity and mercy. Justice only enters the picture if when your appointed time comes you have yet to comprehend or believe in the truth of a concept, i.e. in a god. As an old man, Hitler, so long as he came to believe, he'd be given mercy, but if an 18 year old dies before he understands or excepts the reality of god, too bad.

                    On top of that, christians are all robots anyway, wind-up toys, created by god to do his will in order to fulfill his plan. Romans 9:14-24. So he creates the saved and the condemned beforehand. So why worry yourself over it?
                    Last edited by JimL; 08-03-2020, 07:20 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Romans 9 is about roles not salvation! Isaac was chosen to be the ancestor that would lead to the Messiah. Pharaoh was a stubborn fool, so God used his stubbornnessfor His own purposes.http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/bubba9.php
                      Paul appeals to a "probability" or an example from the past that verifies the truth of the present. Ishmael was an ethnic descendant of Abraham, fully eligible by the law of the day for the blessings of the covenant with YHWH. Thus there is precedent as well for modern ethnic descendants of Abraham to be rejected, and not merely accepted on an ethnic (group membership) basis. This sort of precedent would be a convincing form of forensic proof for an ancient reader.

                      TPF agrees with this point, and thus ironically performs the very social science scholarship its author has rejected in our exchange. But then it goes rather too far in an effort to secure its preferred interpretation. "Two truths" are taken from these three verses.
                      "...God determined who was, and who was not, a child of promise."

                      That is so, but the obvious intent of TPF is to glean from this some rhetorical support for the Calvinist doctrine of election. There is none; no criteria is stated for how or why God made the determination, or at what point (in the primarily causal, ideal pre-existence of Isaac and Ishmael?).
                      "...Paul is speaking of the salvation of individuals."

                      This is a false step. While Paul uses this "probability" as an illustration which can by extension bear some relevance on issues of salvation, the salvation-status of Ishmael is never discussed (contrary to Piper, Pip. JG., 43). Indeed, since he was circumcised it is arguable that he entered into a covenant relationship with YHWH and could have been saved as were the other OT saints; but nothing is said of this by Paul one way or the other (Gen. 17:26) Yet Piper believes that opponents of Paul could argue that Ishmael was excluded from the covenant, and thereby creates a "loophole" that Paul needs to answer. There would be no such grounds for such an argument.

                      As Morris [353] puts it, "This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau were necessarily excluded from the covenant; it was God's command that they receive circumcision, the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13; cf. vv. 23, 26). They were not excluded from the mercy of God and both received blessing." Cranfield [2/475] likewise: "So we must not read into Paul's argument any suggestion that Ishmael, because he is not chosen to play a positive part in the accomplishment of God's special purpose, is therefore excluded from the embrace of God's mercy."

                      So, if this passage is about salvation of individuals as White claims, it would tend to prove some sort of universalism at worst, which we are sure White does not want to claim.

                      Moo [576n] acknowledges this, even as a Calvinist, but responds with a non-answer: "But the text Paul quotes focuses, as we have seen, on the clear distinction drawn in Genesis between Isaac and Ishmael in terms of the covenant. Isaac is the heir who receives and through whom are transmitted the spiritual blessings of the covenant."

                      But all Moo does here is reverse his accusation against those like Cranfield and Morris, whom he claims "minimize the spiritual implications" -- Moo in turn merely tries to maximize the spiritual implications, and in so doing, passes right by the better answer, that "salvation of individuals" isn't Paul's subject.

                      Again, as yet, Paul is not concerned with "salvation" -- he is merely addressing the specific point that ethnic identity is no guarantee of fulfillment of a promise of any sort (not salvation in particular). By expansion one may say as well, nothing about a person guarantees that God will give them something -- and this meaning, from the point of view of men (more on this shortly).

                      The covenant promise to Isaac was about land and blessing in this life -- the soteriological aspects of the promise (the Temple cultus) would not be presented for many years yet. Thus, at most, it would only be right to say that "Paul is talking about salvation" in the sense that it would be right to say that someone saying, "the animals of the world are glorious" is "talking about badgers" -- we have something that shows us that God is in charge of setting the rules, and presumably, He does so in all settings, not just this one. But none of this tells us what exactly the rules are for anything beyond covenant membership, and the particular negative, "ethnic identity" isn't.

                      Moo [571] rightly rejects the idea that Paul "is implying nothing about the salvation of individuals" (emphasis added) but the Calvinist goes too far in thinking that Paul is saying everything and all that can be said about the salvation of individuals. Indeed, "implication" is really all that CAN be derived from Paul about this subject here, and Calvinists fill in the rest based on assumption.

                      Edwards' commentary on Romans [231-2] puts it this way: "What role, if any, Ishmael, for example, played in God's broader economy we do not know, though we are told that God blessed and cared for him (Gen. 16:10-14; 17-20; 21:13-21)." And: "In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God's purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ." [233]

                      But, for the first time, the question is raised, "Why Isaac and not Ishmael?" Paul gives no reply; as a loyal Hebrew, as Wilson would put it, he would consider the question pointless, for it would be quite obvious what the answer would be: God is holy, just and good; therefore, whatever the reasons for His choice of Isaac over Ishmael, it was right. Why bother of the details?

                      The answer would reside in God's nature, so we can make a reasonable assessment. God is love; his choice is motivated by love (meaning, in the sense of agape, the greater good); so Isaac was chosen over Ishmael because it served the greater good.

                      And, why is that? Perhaps the answer lies in what DID happen when Ishmael founded a nation: It was obviously less suitable for God's purpose which Isaac's descendants fulfilled. The Calvinist like Palmer who merely gives up and says a "human searching mind" can find no answer, does so aware that they cannot take the same route we have without undermining their own doctrine of election.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Romans 9 is about roles not salvation! Isaac was chosen to be the ancestor that would lead to the Messiah. Pharaoh was a stubborn fool, so God used his stubbornnessfor His own purposes.http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/bubba9.php
                        Have you even read Romans 9:14-24, because it's clear, it's not subject to interpretation. God, according to Paul, clearly raises up some for a noble purpose and others for ignoble purposes, some to be saved and some to be destroyed. I suggest you go back and read what it says!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Have you even read Romans 9:14-24, because it's clear, it's not subject to interpretation. God, according to Paul, clearly raises up some for a noble purpose and others for ignoble purposes, some to be saved and some to be destroyed. I suggest you go back and read what it says!
                          Stop reading the Bible like a fundy hyperCalvinist!
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            Stop reading the Bible like a fundy hyperCalvinist!
                            Hey, ignore what Romans 9:14-24 clearly states if you wll, but that doesn't change what it says. I don't think you've actually read it.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Hey, ignore what Romans 9:14-24 clearly states if you wll, but that doesn't change what it says. I don't think you've actually read it.
                              Romans is an argument. You can't rip passages out of context. E.g. Judas went and hung jimself ... go, therefore a do likewise.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                That's an fMRI, not an MRI.
                                Tough.

                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                And the interpretation of it is still subjective.
                                By that logic, so is interpretation of scripture, as well as the average Christian's conscience.

                                There's goes Christian objective morality...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X