The Bottom Line

[_ludwigm]

One mans pornography is another mans art.

And the another man will be banned by the one.

[_malkie]

To be fair, I'm also saying that, unless you define god's acts and commands etc. as good, or you privilege your own view, I think you still have a problem with which entity is good and which is evil.

Was it good for the ancient Israelites to butcher the various people they came across in their wanderings?

The religious answer seems to be: if God commanded it, it was good; if not, it was evil.

I find that answer unsatisfying, quite apart from the fact that it brings us back to the question of determining if it is really god who is commanding. Of course, I'm not a philosopher, nor do I play one on TV (;=)

So all murder is evil? How about in self-defense malkie?

Again, the claim is we can't tell the difference so all murder is the same right? Now is murder evil or good? And if we can't tell the difference, how can God hold us accountable for our actions.

Like I said, the whole argument is absurd.

Where did I say that? Or give you any reason to think that I believe that it is always evil to kill someone?

But you seem to be suggesting that as long as you believe that god commands it, it is good to kill someone. Please tell me if I am misrepresenting your position.

Anyway, I must leave the discussion for now. I'll look back in later.

[_subgenius]

Other than by definition, and assuming that there exist supernatural (or even natural) entities "Devil" and "God", how would you establish:

1. that the supernatural entity who is communicating with you is "God" and not "Devil"?
2. that "God" is more powerful than "Devil"?

i appreciate the qualifier of "other than by definition" because your inquiry is rather like someone asking "can you establish that water is indeed 'wet' ? "
other than by definition i would assume you would mean "by example" or "by demonstration" at which case across the great technology of the internet that is an unlikely event.
However, the probability that the supernatural entity is "God/Devil" is higher than it being Bertrand's teapot.
As for the second inquiry, "other than by definition" (which is sufficient), i would presume that their relative power is established as is established that Love is preferred and triumphs over Hate - that success overcomes failure...that strength overpowers weakness....and that knowledge is more than ignorance.

[_subgenius]

To be fair, I'm also saying that, unless you define god's acts and commands etc. as good, or you privilege your own view, I think you still have a problem with which entity is good and which is evil.

Was it good for the ancient Israelites to butcher the various people they came across in their wanderings?

The religious answer seems to be: if God commanded it, it was good; if not, it was evil.

I find that answer unsatisfying, quite apart from the fact that it brings us back to the question of determining if it is really god who is commanding. Of course, I'm not a philosopher, nor do I play one on TV (;=)

unsatisfying? how?
it would seem that your position is that God is not qualified to determine good and evil near as well as you are, ergo good and evil are as you would have them be if you determine that they are to be at all!

There is no real question of "is it really god who is commanding", that is a red herring you would wave about in hopes of delaying the obvious defeat you are suffering on this argument.

[_Drifting]

To be fair, I'm also saying that, unless you define god's acts and commands etc. as good, or you privilege your own view, I think you still have a problem with which entity is good and which is evil.

Was it good for the ancient Israelites to butcher the various people they came across in their wanderings?

The religious answer seems to be: if God commanded it, it was good; if not, it was evil.

I find that answer unsatisfying, quite apart from the fact that it brings us back to the question of determining if it is really god who is commanding. Of course, I'm not a philosopher, nor do I play one on TV (;=)

unsatisfying? how?
it would seem that your position is that God is not qualified to determine good and evil near as well as you are, ergo good and evil are as you would have them be if you determine that they are to be at all!

There is no real question of "is it really god who is commanding", that is a red herring you would wave about in hopes of delaying the obvious defeat you are suffering on this argument.

Still no answer...

[_subgenius]

It must be an innate part of our nature. Just like taste, smell, sight and so on.

So when people do evil things that's just an innate part of our nature?

Let me pose a dilemma for you.

The men who flew planes into the Workd Trade Centre innately believed they were doing good. I'm guessing that you innately believe what they did was evil.

short list of flaws in your proposition here:
1. it is really not a dilemma you are proposing, more like a conundrum (but its really neither due to following absurdities)
2. You are actually guessing about everyone's beliefs in your "dilemma".
3. believing an action is good does not equate to that action being good
4. believing an action is bad does not equate to that action being bad

[_Drifting]

3. believing an action is good does not equate to that action being good
4. believing an action is bad does not equate to that action being bad

By who's definition of good and bad? Yours? Mine? The jihadists?

Actually, believing an action us good does make it good, at least to the believer.

Noah probably believed the flood was good.
Everyone not on the ark probably believed it was evil.
(When was that flood, exactly?)

[_Themis]

Meh.....Believers are willing to be fools for Christ.

Some are, many are not. I do not consider most religious people(Including Christians) fools, but some are. There are also fools for Jim Jones.

We are not willing to play foolish games with unbelievers.

It's not playing games to ask legitimate questions about problems one may observe with how some are claiming to know some objective truths. It's the games to avoid dealing with these questions that are the problem.

When you are sincere in seeking God, He will be there to open His arms to you. At that time you will no longer need to ask the same questions of the next victim you reel in which you keep asking over and over again. You will have received the answers from the Source Himself.

I have spent most of my life as a sincere believer. I think I might know something about it. You still are avoiding questions regarding it. That's fine, but don't expect people will not notice and bring it up on a forum where that is one of it's purposes. I would never discuss these issues with people like you on the street that don't want to talk about it.

[_Themis]

This seems to be the post that initiates the horrible and tragic erosion of reasoning which follows it goosestep.
The idea in the OP being considered is "the unreliable nature of the spiritual experience in giving one religious truth claims"
is, in itself, an irrational claim...and that irrationality is manifest by Drifting's example.

You are not nearly as bad as droppy, but you still post a lot of stuff without anything to back it up. The Op is quite rational and is only stating an observation. If you think it is wrong, feel free to show how. Show how the spiritual experience is reliable in learning objective truth claims.

In fact the whole premise of the OP is absurd simply based on the simple fact that religious experiences are, by definition, subjective...so to propose some sort of revelation that these subjective experiences are not objective experiences is rather embarrassing to he who proposes it.

Yet you miss what is being stated again. Of course the experience is subjective. This does not help you, but hurts your belief about reliability in learning OBJECTIVE truth claims. No one was claiming the experience is objective, only that his observations is that it is not a reliable method in learning OBJECTIVE truths that so many religions like LDS claim you can. It's never been about subjective truth claims, and it is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. I guess he didn't know some of the people who populate the celestial forum.

Hitting the bulls-eye while others miss is not an indictment against the arrow but rather against the archer.

Well his observations are about many people and their use of the spiritual to claim they know certain truths, and seeing that they mostly tend to not agree.

in other words, if it is reliable then you can put your trust in it.

Then show how it is reliable.

this is just bad logic and almost incomprehensible. (again, the subjective used for the objective?)
"evidence against"? for example?

You don't read or comprehend well do you. It's about objective truth claims. God exists is an objective truth claim. The Book of Mormon is true, and about a real people is an objective truth claim. Jesus died and was resurrected is an objective truth claim. A number of LDS truth claims do not hold about in light of the evidence we have.

[_Themis]

The problem Malkie is that they don't know. Tobin and subgenius cannot think of any way of distinguishing between a message or influence from God and a message or influence from the Devil.

Or themselves. These questions bring up some real problems for those who want to claim objective truth claims through subjective spiritual experiences. How do we know that God is not just some alien race messing with us, with some playing the role of God and others the devil, and others in-between. Good and bad are not really as clear cut as we would like to believe.