Solon, I am so disappointed in you. You seem to know so much, but as soon as you get into the Bible, it quickly becomes apparent that you are in deep weeds. It is clear to me that you do not even know the rudimentary principals of Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation). I'll look for some links. Although now that I think about it, I don't think you want to know. There is a million miles between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge not the suppression of it. Putting God on ignore doesn't make Him go away. The question is asked "should God be replaced?" I would suggest that is the wrong question. Can God be replaced, might be more suitable, For if He in fact does exist no amount of idle banter or slander on your part, can change that. If God does not exist then the question is completely irrelevant. Why would you even pose such a meaningless question in the first place. Maybe you should start a should gravity be replaced thread. Believe it or not, you are my best argument for the existence of God. Take, for example the short post that I am responding to; you mention contradictions absurdities and cruelties. Or in other words the appeal is to, logic, science and morality, yet as you stated previously;
philosophical systems ......must all, ultimately, assume the truth of a first principle. So far, nobody has found a way around this. Having assumed a first principle, however, it has been found that the philosophy of logic has enabled humankind to understand the universe in which we live. We have found pragmatic benefit from accepting reason as a guide to staying alive, and as a guiding principle to the quality of that life.
It's very nice for you just to assume your first principles. Not that there is anything wrong with logic, science and morality, it's just that you assume them in opposition to your own stated world view. Booth your feet seem to be planted firmly in mid air. Sort of like the roadrunner, just hanging there. Even the concept of Pantheism attempts to smuggle Theism (Personal) in the back door. No, on the basis of an impersonal, materialistic, purposeless beginning to the universe there is simply no way to account for anything in the three areas mentioned, without just assuming them. How does this differ from just making them up. While it has been conceded here by almost all that there can be no ultimate morality, I do not believe that the true implications of this have been addressed. It simply does not follow that people will act in a way that will bring "pragmatic benefit" to all. Did you watch Niteline the other night? They had a guy on who smuggled pictures out of an African country that were taken by a rebel photographer as he chronicled the rape, torture, and dismemberment, committed by his buddies as they went along their merry way. One picture had about five guys standing there with big grins on their faces like they had just won a baseball game, only the game ball they were holding up was some guys severed head. I'm certain that you will agree that is wrong. The question that you have no answer to is WHY! To paraphrase a popular song today;
YOU AND ME BABY AINT NOTHIN BUT MATTER
SO IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR HEADS ON A PLATTER
The logic is unassailable. Who are you to impose your view of morality on them?
Ingersol says "Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is good, that is to say, moral."
What could make one happier than to have the head of your enemy in your hands?
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO INGERSOL;
Everything that destroys or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.
What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible answer is one word: Intelligence.
We want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. We want the history of intellectual development, of the growth of the ethical, of the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of self-denial. We want to know the paths and roads that have been traveled by the human mind.
These facts in general, these histories in outline, the results reached, the conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken together, would form the best conceivable moral guide.
Isn't that special!!! Who's well being? Certainly not the guy with no head. "We want, we want, we want," I say, WHY, WHY, WHY!!!! The fact is Ingersol and all like him(that would be you since you quote him) want to have their cake and eat it to. Unfortunately however, after you have slain the dragon you call God, you find that you have dealt yourselves a mortal blow. In eliminating the only absolute transcendent standard, (GOD), that you so detest, you loose the ability to measure anything without importing some artificial ethic that is itself open to the same challenge as that used to eliminate God. Personally I don't see how appealing to Agnosticism leaves you much better off than the Relativists. While possibly avoiding being obviously self refuting, it does nothing to mitigate, and in fact shares, the other major problem with Relativism in that it can't be lived out in the real world. This is especially true In the area of morality. The tension remains. On the one hand Human beings are hard wired to be moral. We can't open our mouths for two sentences without making value statements. Yet if there is no God,( and therefore no ultimate standard), then you are acting in opposition to what you claim to be reality. How do you account for this discrepancy? In an earlier post I compared you with someone trying to disprove the existence of magnetism by pointing to a compass. Every time you try to show that God is evil, you demonstrate that you believe there is a standard by which to judge!
This post started in response to you mocking the concept of man being made in the Image of God. You mistakenly inferred that to mean that God has a body. What it actually means is that we as humans created by God, reflect some of the communicable attributes of the God who made us. God is moral. Therefore we who are in His image share that as part of our essential nature. That seems like it fits the universe better than the alternative to me
This only deals with the first part (Morality), but I think I'll post it for your reaction
What a person truly believes is reflected more by what they do than what they say. If I were to evaluate you on that basis I would have to say that your philosophy may be Atheistic\Agnostic, but practically you look like a Theist You know what they say "if it looks like a duck"
Have a absolutely good day;
Greg
PS From the Evangelical dictionary
Genesis 1:26-27 indicates that God created humankind as male and female in his image (tselem)and likeness (demut). It is doubtful that distinctions between the meanings of these two words are to be pressed. Rather, the pair of words conveys one idea through a literary device known as hendiadys. Later, in Genesis 5:1-3, after God's image-bearers had sinned against him, the language of Genesis 1:26-27 is repeated as a prelude to a list of Adam's posterity. Significantly, this passage links God's original creation of humans in his likeness with the subsequent human procreation of children in Adam's image and likeness. Following the Genesis narrative further, after the flood of Noah, Genesis 9:6 indicates that due to the image of God capital punishment is required in cases of murder. To murder a creature who images God is tantamount to an attempt to murder the God who created the image-bearer, and the heinous nature of this offense warrants the forfeiture of the murderer's life as well.
But what is meant by the terms "image" and "likeness"? Three approaches to this question are commonly found, and no doubt all three have some merit. Many have concluded that humans are image-bearers due to their superior intellectual structure. Others have stressed that God mandates that humans function as rulers and managers of the creation as they image him.(Gen 1:26 Psalm 8) Yet another approach stresses the created relationships of humans; they image God as they relate to him, to each other, and to nature. Just as the Creator is a being in relationship, so are his creatures. Putting these views together, humans are like God in that they are uniquely gifted intellectually (and in many other ways) so that they may relate to God and to each other as they live as stewards of the world God has given them to manage. While an image is a physical representation of a person or thing (Ex 20:4 Matt 22:20), the human body does not mechanically image God, as if God had a body. Rather, the whole human being, including the body, images God's attributes by ethical living in concrete settings. |
