Hey there FlawedIntellect,FlawedIntellect wrote:Greetings, Mister Spock. Or rather, someone who pretends to be Mister Spock. It is most peculiar that you join a forum like this as a character that is often regarded as being intelligent and rational. While I do not dispute this of the character, there are multiple ways to interpret someone joining a forum as such a character. One such example is that a person may try to take the appearance of being rational by associating themselves with the image of such a character. This does not however make anyone rational so much as a cosplayer dressing up as Spock and showing up at a debate. One can resemble Spock in appearance and speech pattern and yet still lack his attributes of logic and reason. This is not to accuse you of possessing an ulterior motive, however it can certainly be interpreted in such a way.
In any case, however, welcome to the forums.
Thank you for the welcome.
I chose the persona of Spock with the hope that it would evoke a sense of logic, since that was feature sorely lacking in the comments I reviewed before joining. Nothing more, nothing less. That was it.
And while we are speaking of forum names, there are a few ways one could interpret "FlawedIntellect."
Your definition of "timeless" seems novel to me. Did you find it in the work of any published philosopher or did you just make it up off the cuff? It seems quite evident that your "timeless" being is really a being who acts in time. How then is he timeless? It sounds like you are confusing the idea that he is not subject to the ravages of time (like aging) with the entirely distinct concept that he is timeless.FlawedIntellect wrote:On the contrary, timeless can simply mean not being bound by the limitations or requirements that time puts on things. So, a timeless being will be able to interact with the world about it without time having any effect upon it. The world where time exists, however, will be influenced. Time demands for things to have an origin. Time demands for things to be caused to have an effect. A timeless being, not being subject to time's requirements and limitations, can hence exist without need for being caused. Additionally, not being bound or influenced by time means that time will not have any effects on it like aging or changing. So, nothing inside of time affects it, and the necessity for a cause is unnecessary.Spock wrote: Your assumptions are logically incoherent. A "timeless" being cannot "do" anything because actions are, by definition, temporal. Christian philosophers, especially Molonists like William Lane Craig, have tried to solve this problem by suggesting some things are "logically prior" but that doesn't help because the problem is one of a timeless being acting "before" time exists.
A similar irrationality is found in the concept of omniscience. If God has always known everything, then he is incapable of every making any decision or choice. He is more like a brute non-personal fact than a free "person" who has "chosen" anyone as the Bible says. The bottom line is that such philosophical speculations are entirely foreign to the Bible and inconsistent with it.
The philosophical problems with the concept of a timeless personal god are well known and have been discussed extensively in the literature. William Lane Craig responded to this criticism in his article Divine Timelessness and Personhood published in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 109-124 which he opens with the following words:
He then lays out the challenges he wants to defeat:It is frequently alleged by detractors of divine timelessness that the concept of a timeless person is incoherent, that the properties essential to personhood cannot be exemplified timelessly. Since it is essential to theism that God be personal, it follows that God cannot be timeless. Thus, if God exists, He is temporal.
In effect these opponents of divine timelessness are arguing that the following two propositions are broadly logically incompatible:
1. God is timeless.
2. God is personal.
In order to demonstrate this, these philosophers try to show that it is necessarily true that
3. If God is timeless, He does not exemplify properties x, y, z.
4. If God does not exemplify properties x, y, z, He is not personal.
Where x, y, z are replaced by certain specified properties.
His article is filled with philopholistical mumbo-jumbo that I find quite ridiculous. It is most certainly not related to anything concerning the Biblical God. It's all vain philosophy. For example:The answer to that question will, of course, depend on one's concept of personhood and the conditions laid down for something's being a person. Typically detractors of divine timelessness propose certain criteria which serve as necessary conditions of personhood and then seek to show that a timeless being fails to meet these standards. In his helpful survey of this issue, Yates observes that these criteria tend to fall into three broad groups: (1) criteria based on states of consciousness, (2) criteria based on intentionality, and (3) criteria based on inter-personal relations. 3 Defenders of divine timelessness might choose to challenge the adequacy of the proposed criteria by arguing that they are not necessary conditions of personhood, thus in effect undercutting(4 ) - a not unpromising strategy in light of the difficulty of defining personhood, which stirs debates in applied ethics over beginning and end of life issues and in the field of artificial intelligence. More often, however, proponents of timelessness have sought to show that God as they conceive Him can in fact meet the conditions stipulated, however incorrect they may be, thus undercutting( 3). Let us consider these questions with respect to each of the three types of criteria proposed.
So obviously, I am amongst those philosophers who reject his philopholistic rationalizations of fundamentally incoherent presumptions based on wild metaphysical speculations. It is all absurd. Patently absurd.Although God's timeless volitions are not the result of decisions taken at any point in time, nonetheless they are freely willed, as is evident from the fact that there are worlds in which God does create a universe and in such worlds nothing external to God determines His volition to create. Thus, God can be truly said to have efficacious and free volitions timelessly.
Nice ideas, but God's law is demonstrably NOT good. Bible believing folks in this thread have explicitly stated this fact. You can review this thread and see for yourself.FlawedIntellect wrote: God is good. He embodies goodness. Where there is an absence of God, there is evil. Quite simply, when God is at work, he exploits the actions of evil people to bring good to the benefit of people. When people do what's wrong, God takes advantage of the situation and spins it in a way that has a positive outcome and consequences for those that are evil. A good God does not leave his law unknown. He made his law known to us. We are subject to it, regardless of whether or not we want to be. God cannot just sit there and let things happen if he weren't to have consequences for the actions people make. Yet it's clear that there are eternal consequences for wrongdoing. So, it is clear that God is good by providing consequences and having a law that holds people accountable.
It is impossible to say that "God is justice" because he frequently does things that are not just by the standard definition of the word. For example, if he said he was going to punish me for adultery and murder, I would tell him he is unjust because he let David commit those sins without receiving the punishment God's Law demands. No judge can judge me for crimes he let others commit and be called "just."FlawedIntellect wrote: God is Justice. He is the judge and the one who executes consequences based on judgment. This judgment is made based upon the evidence of violations of the law. God is an objective law-giver. His role in our actions is to provide consequences for wrongdoings, not to strip us of our free will. That is the role he has chosen to take. The system is clear in that the actions of human beings are the responsibility of human beings.
Slaughtering babies is "justice"? Is that what the Bible has taught you?FlawedIntellect wrote: You accuse him of genocide yet ignore that this was a consequence based on judgment. The peoples of Canaan violated the law, and God demanded justice. So he sent the Israelites as his means of justice.
Have you ever considered the irony of condemning the Canaanites as moral reprobates because they may have sacrificed some of their children? They were so terrible wicked for killing their children, God finally had to send in his people to do it for them! Doesn't it seem rather odd to say that the Canaanites were killing some of their babies contrary to God's will while the Israelites killed them all in accordance with God's will?
They were the PRIMARY CHURCH FATHERS who established the creeds and doctrines that all orthodox Christians believe. If they were such biblical idiots, maybe we should question everything they handed down to us, including the Bible.FlawedIntellect wrote: I've noticed something. These people all contradicted the scripture.
Genesis 1:27-28 (NCV)
27So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.28 God blessed them and said, "Have many children and grow in number. Fill the earth and be its master. Rule over the fish in the sea and over the birds in the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
28In Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave and free person, male and female. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.
17 No Israelite man or woman must ever become a temple prostitute.18 Do not bring a male or female prostitute's pay to the Temple of the Lord your God to pay what you have promised to the Lord, because the Lord your God hates prostitution.
So, if these people were paying any attention to scripture, why did they miss these?
But one correction - Galatians 3:28 says nothing about equality of women in practice. Note that is speaks also of "no slave nor free." Do you think that meant the Christian slaves no longer were in chains? This is a near UNIVERSAL error propagated by Christian apologists. It is inexcusable. It makes me despair for their intellects (or worse, their honesty).
Yes, and it saturates the Bible from beginning to end. It is based on the fundamentally male image of God, not just as a single male, but a Trinity of males consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This male God stands at the head of a hierarchy of male authority that puts women at the bottom:FlawedIntellect wrote: The misogynistic regard for women is a clear trait that is derived from Man's pride.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
The sexism of the Bible cannot be denied without denying its fundamental theological view of God and his relation to humans:
Male Ruler: God
Male Ruler: Christ
Male Ruler: Man
Female Subject: Woman
The Bible begins with sexism. The creation myth blames the woman for all the sin in the world and says God himself placed two curses upon her: 1) the pain of childbirth and 2) male domination:
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
This verse cannot be explained away because its plain meaning is confirmed and applied in the New Testament where it is used as a justification for why women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in Christian churches:
1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Women are not allowed to teach because 1) males have primacy because Adam was created first and 2) women are not reliable teachers because they are easily deceived, like Eve. And it completes the picture of the creation myth when it says "woman will be saved through childbearing."
Now when this was shared earlier on this forum, someone tried to deny the plain teaching of the Bible by asserting that I was totally wrong because Romans 5 says that our sinful condition was due to Adam. Such sophistry is patently absurd. If you want to press that point, you must contradict 1 Tim 2:11-14. The proper biblical solution is always HARMONY which means that you must accept and harmonize, not obviate, the contrary passages. It is no argument against the obvious sexism taught in Scripture.
You bet I read that. It was one of my favorite passages when I was a Christian. Although there was a little cognitive dissonance with the female image applied to Christ.FlawedIntellect wrote: By the way, did anyone ever read Proverbs, in which Wisdom is personified as a woman? And how Solomon keeps referring to the ideal woman as someone who can actually accomplish things and work herself? See: http://christianthinktank.com/fem03c.html There are some nice quotes of scripture here and some great application of context.