Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Off Topic
61

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It has everything to do with you, because you believe in the same category of stuff.

[/quote]

I bear responsibility for other people’s acts of violence:human rights abuses, committed by people I don’t know, have nothing to do with - not associated with their religion - I bear responsibility for their actions because I believe in the same “category” of stuff? No. Nonsense.

No I’m not. How can you be “homophobic” if you don’t support any legislation specifically targeting gay people? No we’ve been through this. I’m not homophobic. And religion hasn’t changed my beliefs on such matters.

Don’t try to pretend anything I advocate would lead to kids being left in institutions and abused. Prospective adopters are already heavily screened and vetted and there are many people deemed unsuitable for all sorts of reasons.

[quote]

Rather than send them to be raised by otherwise normal gay people.

That the Church, and western culture are tightly tied together should I be surprised that you became a Catholic rather than a Sikh? That you have an irrational attitude towards gays? Given you are a Christian conservative there are a lot of quintessential things about you that can be stereotyped. If you were a humanist, similarly you would have a lot of the common humanist beliefs, but at least they would be rational and changeable. [/quote]

Lol! You’re still making all sorts of incorrect assumptions about what I believe. As I said, I don’t understand this obsession with my personal beliefs. In just about every case my personal beliefs about God don’t change my fundamental beliefs about these things anyway.

62

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[/quote]

How would the criticisms in that video apply to an adherent of the “perennial philosophy?”

63

Between this thread and the PWI one, a tub of Plazma says SM gets busted tapping his foot in a bathroom stall at some point in the near future.

64

[quote]Severiano wrote:

What is interesting to me is that the Church does follow what is the norm by society. How do you go from Sodom and Gamorrah, and Pope JP II calling homosexual inclinations evil, to this Pope saying, “Who am I to judge.”

You want to know how? They make it up as they go along… And they make changes with society as their rules become outdated… Just as with the old testament, just as with their views of the world being the center of the universe and the punihsments they gave to Galileo and other intellectuals.

And, in the future they will change more, along with what society find tolerable. The Church is changed by people, and so is it’s morality. Otherwise it wouldn’t have ever changed from old to new. [/quote]

I intend to respond to your other questions at a later time.

In going from Pope John Paul II to Pope Francis, absolutely nothing has changed in Catholic teaching. The only thing that has changed is the manner in which the popes decide to discuss the subject. If you have any questions about this, refer to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Their words do not in any way contradict the unchanged Catholic teaching, in fact, both of their words are in line with Catholic teaching.

Pope Francis is indicating that it is inappropriate to judge the ultimate fate of homosexual people, none of us can do that, only God. Also, recognizing that we are all flawed, Christians hope that all people make it to heaven, somehow or another. Christians have hope in a merciful God. Please don’t misinterpret their words and use it as “evidence” that the church is morally relativistic, it’s dishonest.

As an aside, I appreciate the manner in which Pope Francis discusses issues such as the one you mentioned. It is not up to church goers to be harsh, this is not in line with Gospel teaching. On the other hand, it is up to church goers to be reflective of a kind, patient, and merciful (among other descriptors) God. Further, a hardline approach often fails when attempting to discuss contentious issues. I think Pope Francis recognizes this reality and seeks to engage people in a more productive manner.

You wrote, “The Church is changed by the people…” I would remind you that the people are the Church. People do change, you are correct, this does not indicate that official church teaching has changed in any way whatsoever. The morality of the Church, on the other hand, has not changed. Refer to the Cathechism if you have any questions in regard to the morality of the Church.

Last, I think the Bible can be read in terms of “progressive revelation.” If a person is listening, God will illuminate the next good step. If a person is listening, God will meet that person where they are in life. There’s no sense in making an issue seem insurmountable, that could turn a person off. God shows us one thing a time, making the journey seem a bit more manageable.

More specific to the Old Testament (as you brought up), God is meeting the people of the Old Testament where they were at that time. They were a hard-hearted people, just like many of us. It doesn’t make sense for God to say, “Oh hey, you guys really suck at life, you’re way down there and I want you to be way up here, by the way, many of you will royally fail at this task.” I’m pretty sure that approach would fail. So, instead, God comes to them where they are and says, “I see where you are in life, let’s take a step in this direction.” When the people were ready, Jesus enters the revelation narrative and the fullness of revelation is revealed. The Old Testament is incomplete revelation. The New Testament is the fullness, completeness of revelation. Essentially, Jesus says, “Ok, we’ve made some progress, now I want you to know everything.”

So, in terms of God’s immutability, please be mindful of progressive revelation. God doesn’t reveal what you can’t handle. It’s not that the people change God over time; it’s the God changes the people over time. A progressive softening of heart (for those who are disposed to changing).

I hope my writing makes sense.

65

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

What is interesting to me is that the Church does follow what is the norm by society. How do you go from Sodom and Gamorrah, and Pope JP II calling homosexual inclinations evil, to this Pope saying, “Who am I to judge.”

You want to know how? They make it up as they go along… And they make changes with society as their rules become outdated… Just as with the old testament, just as with their views of the world being the center of the universe and the punihsments they gave to Galileo and other intellectuals.

And, in the future they will change more, along with what society find tolerable. The Church is changed by people, and so is it’s morality. Otherwise it wouldn’t have ever changed from old to new. [/quote]

I intend to respond to your other questions at a later time.

In going from Pope John Paul II to Pope Francis, absolutely nothing has changed in Catholic teaching. The only thing that has changed is the manner in which the popes decide to discuss the subject. If you have any questions about this, refer to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Their words do not in any way contradict the unchanged Catholic teaching, in fact, both of their words are in line with Catholic teaching.

Pope Francis is indicating that it is inappropriate to judge the ultimate fate of homosexual people, none of us can do that, only God. Also, recognizing that we are all flawed, Christians hope that all people make it to heaven, somehow or another. Christians have hope in a merciful God. Please don’t misinterpret their words and use it as “evidence” that the church is morally relativistic, it’s dishonest.

As an aside, I appreciate the manner in which Pope Francis discusses issues such as the one you mentioned. It is not up to church goers to be harsh, this is not in line with Gospel teaching. On the other hand, it is up to church goers to be reflective of a kind, patient, and merciful (among other descriptors) God. Further, a hardline approach often fails when attempting to discuss contentious issues. I think Pope Francis recognizes this reality and seeks to engage people in a more productive manner.

You wrote, “The Church is changed by the people…” I would remind you that the people are the Church. People do change, you are correct, this does not indicate that official church teaching has changed in any way whatsoever. The morality of the Church, on the other hand, has not changed. Refer to the Cathechism if you have any questions in regard to the morality of the Church.

Last, I think the Bible can be read in terms of “progressive revelation.” If a person is listening, God will illuminate the next good step. If a person is listening, God will meet that person where they are in life. There’s no sense in making an issue seem insurmountable, that could turn a person off. God shows us one thing a time, making the journey seem a bit more manageable.

More specific to the Old Testament (as you brought up), God is meeting the people of the Old Testament where they were at that time. They were a hard-hearted people, just like many of us. It doesn’t make sense for God to say, “Oh hey, you guys really suck at life, you’re way down there and I want you to be way up here, by the way, many of you will royally fail at this task.” I’m pretty sure that approach would fail. So, instead, God comes to them where they are and says, “I see where you are in life, let’s take a step in this direction.” When the people were ready, Jesus enters the revelation narrative and the fullness of revelation is revealed. The Old Testament is incomplete revelation. The New Testament is the fullness, completeness of revelation. Essentially, Jesus says, “Ok, we’ve made some progress, now I want you to know everything.”

So, in terms of God’s immutability, please be mindful of progressive revelation. God doesn’t reveal what you can’t handle. It’s not that the people change God over time; it’s the God changes the people over time. A progressive softening of heart (for those who are disposed to changing).

I hope my writing makes sense. [/quote]

You are aware that your faith is stemmed upon another faith (Judaism) which had messianic expectations, which means some kind of change on the world to Jews similar to what King David did… Nothing about Heaven. Abraham was their Prophet.

And then, The Christians come along and add… Christ was the, “Messiah” aka second coming of Kind David who was supposed to give the Jews their promised land… But was also Gods son and ultimately didn’t quite accomplish such. Jesus was their Prophet and God, and Son/ Trinity.

And then, you have Muhammad. More in line with Abraham, in that he is just a man… But what a man he was according to Islam. They recognize him as the seal of the prophets and the last one to have anything to say factually about God. His word, is Gods word… His laws are Gods Law…

And the, You have Mormons. Who added yet more pages to this old story…

And get this, the old story seems to be in line with that of both Horus and Dionysus stories from Greece and Egypt.

All God is, is an accumulation of other Gods omni properties, and really cool storylines unfortunately… Everything from the Virgin Birth to omniscience have been parts of other, older stories.

So, when you truly look at the whole you should see that change in morality has gone in line with change in politics as well as world events. When it came to the various crusades, the Popes at the times encouraged killing and plundering of their enemies, and a promise that those who died in the process would go to heaven… This happened numerous times, against other Christians (Cathars) as well as Muslims.

Popes and other leaders of the Church have used the bible and their position to argue murder in cold blood/in the name of God during the Crusades guaranteed heaven. Popes also guaranteed that sins would be forgiven with big donations of money in the past, which was a major reason for Martin Luther to break off from the Church. Which caused a great rift in the religion.

Want to know a secret? MONEY MONEY MONEY. CREAM.

So, to say it’s immutable is really strange to me. It’s anything but immutable and the stories are anything but indifferent.

66

^^ Again, those criticisms don’t apply to adherents of the “perennial philosophy” do they? If you don’t know what that is I’m sure you can google-wiki it.

67

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Again, those criticisms don’t apply to adherents of the “perennial philosophy” do they? If you don’t know what that is I’m sure you can google-wiki it.[/quote]

Which one is it? Is it Divine Command Theory? Yes? No, damn God is evil that way…

But wait, how could that be when before it was Neo Platonic it was Divine Command theory, then Virtue Theory by the Summa Theologica by Aquinas. Wait, no eventually they realized that logic x faith doesn’t quite work so they went back to Pope Leo’s ways. Looks like it changed 3 times within Pope Leo to Aquinas back to Pope Leo from Divine Command.

So next, Neo Platonism now, and you call it “Perennial Philosophy.” But, still there are those within Catholicism that are still good moral Catholics who believe in Divine Command Theory.

But, it NEVER changes. Not when Pope Leo came up with his Tome and Neo Platonism to start the Church, to Pope Innocent murdering Cathars (who were platonists!) with his belief of divine command, to the Summa Theologica and Aquinas claiming Reason and faith are intertwined… It’s never been consistent with these men who speak directly to God.

You do realize Sharia Law was inspired by Jewish and later Christian Laws, that changed… too… :slight_smile: Look it up.

68

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Which one is it?

[/quote]

Which one of what is what? I don’t know what you’re asking here.

Huh? What’s Divine Command Theory have to do with what I just said that you quoted and responded to? You seem to be going around in circles here just moving from one attack on Christianity/Abrahamic monotheism to another. You’ve made all kinds of (incorrect) assumptions about what I believe(you seem fixated on what I believe). I merely saw a whole lot of criticism that you posted and I demonstrated that for some philosophies of religion, for example perennialism, your criticisms do not apply; are groundless.

Again, I’m not following what you’re trying to say here. And I think you are unfamiliar with the schools of thought within perennialism. The perennial philosophy is not necessarily contingent upon either a literal interpretation of the bible, the centrality of Christianity or Judaism, nor of any particular specific interpretation such as Divine Command Theory; something I have also tried to give you my personal opinion about previously in the thread.

Correct. The great architect and His moral order, His nature, “good” and “evil” - these are all unchanging. There is a single, objective fundamental reality and by extension a single, objective morality. The implications of that not being so are vast and profound; see Nietzsche’s warning of the nihilist zeitgeist that afflicts modern man and the consequences.

Surely you realise I know about the origins of sharia and Mosaic law? Yes, sharia is a perversion of Mosaic law. That is what I believe.

Edited

69

You keep asking me why I’m asking you questions, when it’s you who is the one who started off with a claims about immutability and indifference.

When I ask you to show me evidence of such, you turn it around as if I’m straying.

So far I haven’t read anything that shows got is immutable, or anything that shows that the ethics of the Church or evidence sited from the Bible about God have been, “indifferent.” This hasn’t been explained at all. Really you just threw Neoplatonism out there and it brings up problems with the Church murdering it’s own people because they disagreed with the Pope. (Look it up, Pope Innocent and the Cathars) Cathars were Gnostic, Gnostic and concepts of Neoplatonism were seen as threats to the Early Church… Which is why what you say makes no sense.

If anything it seems like people are repulsed by divine command theory and have been troubled by it, and looked for other explanations. It explains why the Church has gone from Divine Command theory, to Neoplatonism. This lead to Cathars and Gnostic ideas of God which undermined divine command theory and Pope Innocents power, so he killed them. Next was Virtue theory with Aquinas which didn’t work as I explained, now back to Neoplatonism (with you) with Pope Leo and St. Augustine as well.

How does your church and your God remain, “immutable” when Popes talk to God, and some of those Popes would have had someone else kill you for your beliefs? Oh well, I guess they would have just been acting like God from the book of Job, and not Christ. Completely consistent…

So, I finally get it… When you say, “indifferent” you really mean, “I don’t know.”

And when you say, “immutable.” Really, you mean, “It’s God, he has different rules.”

That’s fine… Just don’t act like any of it makes sense to a rational person.

70

It would make sense if you don’t keep making assumptions like…about me being a Catholic. I’m not a Catholic. I defend many Catholic traditions and favour, say the conservative Catholic Spaniards and Italians and French to the Communists and atheists and nihilists. Do you understand? Just because I defend conservative Catholicism as a social structure and traditional way of life that may very well be of great spiritual value to practitioners - just because I do that, does not necessarily mean I subscribe to the catechism. But again, my personal beliefs are irrelevant and should not be under scrutiny.

What I say, and post and respond to - that’s what we’re talking about. And I say the pages of theophobia you’ve just posted are groundless. You’re not even familiar with the different philosophies of religion. You accuse me of being closed minded and excluding other cultures and beliefs - in fact, I’m sure I know more about Eastern metaphysical systems than you do. You are merely like a broken record; attacking Christianity first and foremost - and you associate it with “white” reactionary politics. You have an anti-religion agenda that is also political and ideological.

Instead of seeking to understand and respect people of faith and work towards more harmonious relations, you only want to undermine and ridicule religion and take the moral high ground when you have none. After all, how can someone who doesn’t believe in objective morality take the moral high ground on such things? Particularly when they just paint a caricature of Mosaic law or the bible.

Regardless, people should be judged by their actions. I don’t believe in any of the Mormon theology. But I don’t ridicule them. Overall Mormons are great people. They do an enormous amount of charity work, they’re very family orientated and have very close communities and even an international community - a brethren. They can travel around the world and stay at Mormon facilities in foreign countries and feel at home and a sense of community. Why would I want to ridicule an institution that has so many good aspects and may fulfil the spiritual needs of some people? I think it’s very immature to take such a superior, militant atheist view of religion - dogmatic, blind sided; and you make yourself look silly by making incorrect assumptions and criticising me based upon those incorrect assumptions. Not to mention displaying your fundamental ignorance of the very subject you’re purporting to criticise - the philosophy of religion.

71

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It would make sense if you don’t keep making assumptions like…about me being a Catholic. I’m not a Catholic. I defend many Catholic traditions and favour, say the conservative Catholic Spaniards and Italians and French to the Communists and atheists and nihilists. Do you understand? Just because I defend conservative Catholicism as a social structure and traditional way of life that may very well be of great spiritual value to practitioners - just because I do that, does not necessarily mean I subscribe to the catechism. But again, my personal beliefs are irrelevant and should not be under scrutiny.

What I say, and post and respond to - that’s what we’re talking about. And I say the pages of theophobia you’ve just posted are groundless. You’re not even familiar with the different philosophies of religion. You accuse me of being closed minded and excluding other cultures and beliefs - in fact, I’m sure I know more about Eastern metaphysical systems than you do. You are merely like a broken record; attacking Christianity first and foremost - and you associate it with “white” reactionary politics. You have an anti-religion agenda that is also political and ideological.

Instead of seeking to understand and respect people of faith and work towards more harmonious relations, you only want to undermine and ridicule religion and take the moral high ground when you have none. After all, how can someone who doesn’t believe in objective morality take the moral high ground on such things? Particularly when they just paint a caricature of Mosaic law or the bible.

Regardless, people should be judged by their actions. I don’t believe in any of the Mormon theology. But I don’t ridicule them. Overall Mormons are great people. They do an enormous amount of charity work, they’re very family orientated and have very close communities and even an international community - a brethren. They can travel around the world and stay at Mormon facilities in foreign countries and feel at home and a sense of community. Why would I want to ridicule an institution that has so many good aspects and may fulfil the spiritual needs of some people? I think it’s very immature to take such a superior, militant atheist view of religion - dogmatic, blind sided; and you make yourself look silly by making incorrect assumptions and criticising me based upon those incorrect assumptions. Not to mention displaying your fundamental ignorance of the very subject you’re purporting to criticise - the philosophy of religion.[/quote]

It’s in mans nature to question, just as it is in our nature to desire autonomy.

I believe in the above based on the way we are wired and the track record of mankind being a social animal.

You claim to have this awesome view that is embracing to even Mormons, but I’ve seen you post on these forums that Mormonism is blaspheme.

I find it interesting you claim to be buddy buddy with people and have nothing at all bad to say about them, and then you call them blasphemers or that their beliefs are of blaspheme or however you call it.

I too have been very friendly with Mormons. While I’m very quick to call their beliefs bullshit, and their underwear, “fuckethed up.” I actually gave up my bedroom for a Mormon family when I was around 12, for a good year lol. I don’t at all regret it, they were good people with fucked up reasoning. Only regret, they used to throw their tp in the fucking trash can. Other than that, I loved having them.

Also, when we were discussing the current Pope and Cuba, I brought up inconsistency again at that time along with other parts of the storyline that people don’t know, or forget, or got swept under the rug… I brought up Oscar Romero and how Pope JP II really was with the poor. You went and had some strong things to say, and when I sited the SOA you edited the prior which included some zingers. So, I assumed you were a Catholic as a result. Turns out you are just super opinionated and anti reason.

Also, I edit my posts. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Just giving my interpretation of that.

72

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s in mans nature to question, just as it is in our nature to desire autonomy.

[/quote]

Yes, absolutely. And my questioning led me in a certain direction. And it’s also in man’s nature to require belief in a purpose and a transcendental metaphysical system; religion. This is obvious from looking at human civilisation. Most people need religion. Man has spiritual needs.

Then for you enquiry has no meaning beyond a biological anomaly manifest in the human species. I believe this yearning to know and to understand is a manifestation of man’s spiritual yearning.

I don’t recall saying that. I’ve certainly never been spiteful to Mormons. I like them. And any group that has a 83% disapproval rating of POTUS Odingo must have some kind of inner wisdom even if they’re theology is way off.

I actually am buddies with an American Mormon guy. I’ve known him for 20 years. I’ve never been spiteful towards Mormons.

Sev, what the fuck? I’m surprised you’d even bring that up given what a stupid post it was. You denounced John Paul II - the best pope post-Vat II; a staunch defender of human rights who stood up against the tyranny of the Soviet Union and their tentacles in the third world - you denounced him for “turning his back” on Romero. I had no idea what you were talking about(I still don’t) - John Paul paved the way for his beatification. When I asked you what he did wrong; how he “turned his back” on Romero, not only did you not explain how, you went on to imply that the Vatican had him assassinated. You see that’s where a normal conversation veers off into fantasy. I’m not going to waste my time with fantasy, particularly when you won’t even specify what it is you’re talking about, ie what exactly John Paul did wrong.

And if you’d paid a bit more attention to what I actually say you’d notice I’ve been heavily critical of the current pope and what’s coming out of the Soviet Vatican in recent years. But you’re too busy trying to show how clever you are and how stupid religious people are to actually take notice of what people actually believe and say.

[quote]

Also, I edit my posts. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Just giving my interpretation of that. [/quote]

You should put “edited” on them because people go to reply, quote your initial post and then find a different post in its place and have to respond to that as well.

73

[quote] Severiano wrote:

…when I sited the SOA you edited the prior which included some zingers. So, I assumed you were a Catholic as a result. Turns out you are just super opinionated and anti reason.

[/quote]

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about here. Occasionally I edit a post, write “edited” and clarify something or occasionally add something for clarification. I don’t recall doing so in that discussion however I may be wrong. But you regularly completely change your post or add several paragraphs, remove or add questions directed to me and so on. No other poster here does that.

74

Regarding omnipotence and Gods nature being good. If there is evil in the world,God must have created it. If he didnt,there are things outside his power and he is not omnipotent. If God created evil,he is not good. An argument could be that it was good for God to create evil,but this is obviously nonsense. Personally,I feel that when inquiring into questions of religion,often we get to areas that are not explainable by science.

Example,why can’t we see heaven with the.hubbel space telescope?,etc…So we have to have the faith.to believe that God exists outside the realm of science,which is not logical,if the entire universe dwells there. If we applied the same rationale that is required to accept God as good,omnipotent,etc.in our day to day life…well we wouldnt,because we would always.be making choices based upon things we can’t see nor prove which is foolish.

The whole idea of God being necessary for morality to exist is nonsense also. Enjoying this discussion,other than a few pedantic arguments and personal attacks. Someone who is a Christian is suposed to be a follower of Christ and love their neighbor as themself. I hardly think a person like that would want to kill gay people. On the other hand,believe it or not,just because a person doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean he wants to kill someone or rape women. Confusion

75

"More specific to the Old Testament (as you brought up), God is meeting the people of the Old Testament where they were at that time. They were a hard-hearted people, just like many of us. It doesn’t make sense for God to say, “Oh hey, you guys really suck at life, you’re way down there and I want you to be way up here, by the way, many of you will royally fail at this task.” I’m pretty sure that approach would fail. So, instead, God comes to them where they are and says, “I see where you are in life, let’s take a step in this direction.” When the people were ready, Jesus enters the revelation narrative and the fullness of revelation is revealed. The Old Testament is incomplete revelation. The New Testament is the fullness, completeness of revelation. Essentially, Jesus says, “Ok, we’ve made some progress, now I want you to know everything.”

I like this amd appreciate tbe way.you explain things. It sounds good,but in my opinion is incorrect. If you look at Jesus actual teachings,he did.not teach everything and even told his disciples tbat he spoke in riddles so not everyone would understand. His disciples didn’t know he was going to be killed and expected him to return in their lifetime. Were they really that foolish and out of touch with what he was teaching them? I can only assume that he wasn’t teaching them the fulness,so to speak. Jesus teachings are only a small part of the new testament. Much of the information on how to live came from Paul. I also challenge anyone to demonstrate how the new testament shows.the end to the old law and an obvious new way.to live. Its sort of like,we have the old testament,then Jesus dies,now the new testament is the thing to follow…but there are huge gaps here,and things that don’t make a lot of sense. After his death,his disciples went fishing again? After he had sent them out preaching prior to his death. They didn’t know they were supposed to go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every living creature? Wow. How then can we,who live more than 2,000 years later,know how to live? Continue keeping the law like James and some of his friends did? Like Paul and the first church who sold everything they had and gave to the poor and shared all things in common? Those folks lived during Jesus ministry and shortly after,and didn t know how they were supposed to live. How can we? Peicing togther parts from here and there and acting like we know how these people were living and then not live like that anyway? Hmmm. A few thoughts from the mind of Confusion:)

76

^^ That’s not really correct about how the early church operated. Each church in Syria and Asia Minor was actually independent and managed their own finances then Paul tried to bring them all under his central control. There are letters he wrote about financing to one of the churches telling them that everyone has to work and earn their keep. Of course he was keen to ensure that men retained leadership positions too. The early church was not egalitarian it was complimentarian.

77

[quote]Severiano wrote:
You keep asking me why I’m asking you questions, when it’s you who is the one who started off with a claims about immutability and indifference.

When I ask you to show me evidence of such, you turn it around as if I’m straying.

So far I haven’t read anything that shows got is immutable, or anything that shows that the ethics of the Church or evidence sited from the Bible about God have been, “indifferent.” This hasn’t been explained at all. Really you just threw Neoplatonism out there and it brings up problems with the Church murdering it’s own people because they disagreed with the Pope. (Look it up, Pope Innocent and the Cathars) Cathars were Gnostic, Gnostic and concepts of Neoplatonism were seen as threats to the Early Church… Which is why what you say makes no sense.

If anything it seems like people are repulsed by divine command theory and have been troubled by it, and looked for other explanations. It explains why the Church has gone from Divine Command theory, to Neoplatonism. This lead to Cathars and Gnostic ideas of God which undermined divine command theory and Pope Innocents power, so he killed them. Next was Virtue theory with Aquinas which didn’t work as I explained, now back to Neoplatonism (with you) with Pope Leo and St. Augustine as well.

How does your church and your God remain, “immutable” when Popes talk to God, and some of those Popes would have had someone else kill you for your beliefs? Oh well, I guess they would have just been acting like God from the book of Job, and not Christ. Completely consistent…

So, I finally get it… When you say, “indifferent” you really mean, “I don’t know.”

And when you say, “immutable.” Really, you mean, “It’s God, he has different rules.”

That’s fine… Just don’t act like any of it makes sense to a rational person. [/quote]

No one made any claims about God being indifferent, you asked what sort of things a non-religious person might take away from the story of Job, and someone suggested that you insert “indifferent universe” in place of “God.” They did not say that the two were synonyms or 100% interchangeable.

On immutability: one of the assertions about God is that he exists outside of time. If you’ve seen Interstellar, picture the end of that film. God exists in a place where he can see all of time laid out before him. If this is the case, then God is not changing, his being is not altering.

Christians hold to the belief that God had a plan from the very beginning. The Bible supports this, with God repeatedly claiming that he knew people before they were born, has a plan for them etc. If this is indeed true, then you can view the “changes” in God’s behavior as steps in his plan. He never intended to do otherwise, therefore his intentions have never changed. God is not unchanging in the sense that he does not command different things at different times (for humans, as I said before some believe God exists solely outside of time, therefore he does not exist at different “times”), that much is clear, nor is he unchanging in the sense that he is always in the same emotional at all times. Instead, he is unchanging in his final intentions and has planned out how to get there from the beginning of creation.

On you point about popes and using them as being evidence that God is not immutable (partly see what I just wrote): Humans are flawed and persuadable, there is ample evidence of this. In light of this, it is no stretch of the imagination that one or the other Pope’s has got it wrong, they did not hear God correctly (I have certain beliefs about the Biblical necessity of the Pope, but I won’t get into those here) or they were influenced by the times and therefore let that cloud their judgments on what they “heard” from God.

78

That’s exactly what I was thinking when I read his comment. I didn’t bother saying so though because he says stuff all the time and I have no idea what he’s talking about.

79

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ That’s not really correct about how the early church operated. Each church in Syria and Asia Minor was actually independent and managed their own finances then Paul tried to bring them all under his central control. There are letters he wrote about financing to one of the churches telling them that everyone has to work and earn their keep. Of course he was keen to ensure that men retained leadership positions too. The early church was not egalitarian it was complimentarian.[/quote]

Good point touche:) How about this? The portion of the church which lived the way I described did so under Peters authority,who was Jesus actual desciple and lived with him(and was married,which is cool). In effect the earliest church…

80

“On you point about popes and using them as being evidence that God is not immutable (partly see what I just wrote): Humans are flawed and persuadable, there is ample evidence of this. In light of this, it is no stretch of the imagination that one or the other Pope’s has got it wrong, they did not hear God correctly (I have certain beliefs about the Biblical necessity of the Pope, but I won’t get into those here) or they were influenced by the times and therefore let that cloud their judgments on what they “heard” from God.”

Of course,just because someone sets a bad example of Christianity,it doesn’t mean Christianity is wrong. I will say.tho,if the person doing that is Gods earpiece on earth.and infallible(at the time),and putting the dude under house arrest.for.the rest of his life for his book about a sun centered solar system,etc…it opens the door for serious questions about the religion,in my mind