Search results

Thank you I believe we've talked about immutability in the past along this line. Open Theists agree God doesn't change in essential nature. If you mean 'Greek' philosophical versions, I believe they served a good purpose in furthering discussion, but of course they were wrong. They...

It 'can' be, but what if when swinging the hammer, I hit a friend's hand instead of the nail? Isn't such a case of 'good and bad?' (You hit on this in a second and I agree with you -▼ your plow verse and analogy)▼ sorry for the bad puns (unintentional at the time, but brought a smile in...

If Marke is like me, it'd be a question of their purpose for being/showing 'good.' Question: If it isn't from a pure person, is 'good' arbitrary at that point? If someone has a wicked father who happened to provide $ for Christmas one year, was he 'good' to the child? I sometimes do...

Actually, I appreciate both of your points here: I recognize the 'tender mercies' of the wicked that are cruel: a lot of times, the unbeliever tells me that the 'tender mercies of God' are cruel (and why, they say, they don't believe). Proverbs often gives comparison, Hebrew was often...

I'll start here with an important point: Good is simply 'good' because 'good' seeks the well being of another. It is the definition. While it is awkward to try and prove such in philosophy, we just embrace it at that point. While I've said God alone is the Arbiter, that doesn't mean we...

Awkward. It pits a characteristic 'against' the Being possessing the attribute, as such, it causes, if you will, perhaps a false dilemma THUS provides for the proof of something already assumed. I don't believe these are exclusive. However, such already allows 'omni's' into the discussion...

Incorrect, it leads to moral absolute. An absolute is NOT up to discussion! JR! It isn't! (you say wrong, but I really have to wonder if we are communicating, because at the end of this we are in agreement, it means we are just correcting 'wording' if I grasp our conflict. Like most times...

Not particularly, from this explanation: This physicist discusses it more intelligibly than I've seen others and he has a lot of basic primers that are akin to my grasp (it is how I understand and grasp physics).

No, just asking YOU to pay attention as well. As long as you think you can't learn from another, er, there is nothing to see or learn here. I've been challenging and cogent enough, despite your protests to date. PhD's have degrees in this. You? Not sure, but appealing to others where it...

Somewhat Calvinistic, btw :)

Both, because all 'our' even warped sense of good, is imago deo (OUR image that reflects Him). It doesn't mean we get it right, it simply means we recognize what is good to some extent and greater extent as we grow closer to Him (not sure if I answered what you were wanting, just a meaningful...

Him, Clete, we don't get to make those valuations, if Jesus was right (He was). If ONLY God is good (Jesus said so) then 'good' is wholly in the one that ALONE is good, yes? If such by virtue of the declaration, means we aren't 'good' thus incapable of actually valuing 'good,' we are only...

God is good, because His actions follow His nature, all He does is good. While any action may 'seem' like it isn't good, we cannot/do not judge a pure Being's motives, especially when He is all-wise as well Romans 16:27. Actions always comes from love. It may never be understood 'how' but...

Just arguing with Caino, who is like Russell in that both think 'good' must meet their 'outraged' measure of good. For them, a God that commands ANYBODY to kill another, is automatically 'evil.' There is no way to argue against such a point: They have NO ROOM for a policeman, father...

It doesn't, didn't matter to me at that point: ALL that mattered is whether Jesus quoted them or not. Shoot, even Sadler, Kellogg, and company 'quoted' the Old Testament, Caino. THINK! You simply must learn to actually think! Because you say so? :doh: You've undone the entire power...

Incorrect. Because you say so? Because you say so? Sure, many of them have PhDs Um, no. You are simply posturing to try and win something. Won't work. Keep trying. Ditto. I absolutely disagree. I've posted more links, you barely touched them but countered with a guy (1 guy) who has...

Ditto?

Except for the one in my own image? God is a being, not an idea or concept. You nor Sadler GET to force God, to fit your molds. That is EXACTLY what you've done. "God" for you, is who you decided, which is an idea, an idol. Overstated. Most of the conflicts between Jesus were about...

Well, not in Sadler's rendition, but: Then Hebrews 9:22 "The LAW requires it" Leviticus 5:11 Leviticus 17:11 Ezekiel 43:18 So Sadler and Kellogg simply 'assert' sight unseen "God never..." and you buy it hook, line, and sinker. You are a caught fish. When you stand before God, you can...

The Pharisees plugged their ears and yelled at the top of their lungs when they killed Stephen: Same tack. Playing 'incredulous' gets you nothing, Stripe. It is a losing argument. Bryant barely has more than a thousand hits! That's incredulous. Sorry, true. Quit running to obscure...