In message <ba696799.0409300503.414097ae@posting.google.com>, keith
<keithj43@yahoo.com> writes

John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Hlf++jUN6vWBFw8N@jritson.demon.co.uk>...

In message <ba696799.0409281504.512868f7@posting.google.com>, keith
<keithj43@yahoo.com> writes

John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<K0BtagJ3nZWBFw8S@jritson.demon.co.uk>...

In message <ba696799.0409280445.70c53f6c@posting.google.com>, keith

It would be possible to believe in a cruel God, the evidence of whose
cruelty is all around one, and who should be worshipped out of fear Many
Christians effectively follow this line..

But we are talking about YOUR beliefs here.
You apparently believe in an all-powerful deity who is at the same time
a god of mercy and justice, and yet an approver of genocide.
That is cognitive dissonance.

Where di ytoiu get that I believe God approved genocide? I didn't say
anything like that in my post. Did you not read as carefully as you
might?

You said "Now maybe God had a
good reason for ordering genocide"
which means that you believe that your merciful god could approve
genocide.

I believe that God is merciful and just, and I recogonize that there
exists suffering, thus I believe that God's permitting this suffering
is consistent with God's mercy and justice. I do not know or claim to
know the precie reason that God allows suffering, but if God is
merciful and just he must have such a reason (I'd say). I am quite
sure yuo cannot show it unlikely, thus you cannot give a reason to
think the suffering that existws is evidence against God. Or so it
seems to me.

The problem with this standard dodge to avoid the 'problem of evil', by
claiming that God's reasons are unknowable to use mere mortals is the
collateral damage. If we cannot know what God wants, that pretty much
destroys any kind of religious worship or religious-based morality.

If maybe "God had a good reason for ordering genocide", then how could
you criticise any mere mortal for committing genocide, if he considered
it to be 'doing God's work'.

In message <ba696799.0409300503.414097ae@posting.google.com>, keith
<keithj43@yahoo.com> writes

John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Hlf++jUN6vWBFw8N@jritson.demon.co.uk>...

In message <ba696799.0409281504.512868f7@posting.google.com>, keith
<keithj43@yahoo.com> writes

John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<K0BtagJ3nZWBFw8S@jritson.demon.co.uk>...

In message <ba696799.0409280445.70c53f6c@posting.google.com>, keith
<keithj43@yahoo.com> writes

I and my ilk didn't really supply the narrative. The Bible explicitly
describes God as full of mercy and justice, and as being perfectly
consistent and trustworthy.

Except those parts you have chosen to ignore.

You mean those parts I don't believe are *true*? Even those parts
don't say God is not full of mercy and justice, even if they *imply*
such. If you note, I said the bible *explicitly* says that God is full
of mercy and justice and is perfectly consistent and trustworthy.
Suppose I read that explicit description and I find myself convinced
that it's true. Then suppose I find myself seeing a contradiction
between the *explicit claims* about God and some of his (alleged)
actions. There is no inconsistency in thinkin false those things that
contradict what I believe to be true.

Keith

I am reminded of the acolytes of dead dictators, who keep insisting that
they know he was kind to animals and children and so the stories about
atrocities must be false because they contradict all they know about the
man.

It is normally known as 'cognitive dissonance'.

Your comparison seems fallacious. You agree the dictator existed, and
you are criticizing the acolyte for refusing to recognize evil
actually done by the dictator. But you don't think that God actually
did those heinous things do you? If so, then you believe in God. But
if not, then why do you think that *my* disbelieving them is an
exhibition of cognitive dissonance?

Keith

It would be possible to believe in a cruel God, the evidence of whose
cruelty is all around one, and who should be worshipped out of fear Many
Christians effectively follow this line..

But we are talking about YOUR beliefs here.
You apparently believe in an all-powerful deity who is at the same time
a god of mercy and justice, and yet an approver of genocide.
That is cognitive dissonance.

Where di ytoiu get that I believe God approved genocide? I didn't say
anything like that in my post. Did you not read as carefully as you
might?

You said "Now maybe God had a
good reason for ordering genocide"
which means that you believe that your merciful god could approve
genocide.

I believe that God is merciful and just, and I recogonize that there
exists suffering, thus I believe that God's permitting this suffering
is consistent with God's mercy and justice. I do not know or claim to
know the precie reason that God allows suffering, but if God is
merciful and just he must have such a reason (I'd say). I am quite
sure yuo cannot show it unlikely, thus you cannot give a reason to
think the suffering that existws is evidence against God. Or so it
seems to me.

The problem with this standard dodge to avoid the 'problem of evil', by
claiming that God's reasons are unknowable to use mere mortals is the
collateral damage. If we cannot know what God wants, that pretty much
destroys any kind of religious worship or religious-based morality.
If maybe "God had a good reason for ordering genocide", then how could
you criticise any mere mortal for committing genocide, if he considered
it to be 'doing God's work'.

On 1 Oct 2004 16:10:24 -0700,

thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message news:<58f199d9.0410010312.26e4a55f@posting.google.com>...

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<4kkkl0dubca30d0bodc9ibu66ngu1k37fo@4ax.com>...

snip
(snip)

You have made it up.

No I didn't. I got the idea that God is merciful and just from
passages that explicitly say God is merciful and just, passages that
*don't* say that God mandated any genocides.

That is not where you got the idea from. If it was, you would have no
reason to reject passages that contradict that idea and to accept
those that did not.

You read the Bible with a preconceived notion of
what your god is. Those passages that fit your notion you judge as
truly describing god; the others are rejected. It is all based on
your subjective idea of god; which is what I have been trying to point
out to you.

That's not quite correct.

That is quite correct, and what you wrote below confirms it.

I do believe certain things about God, and I
bring those beliefs to the Bible when I read it. If I enconter a
passage that seems tro conflict with what I believe about God, I
consider the possibility that I (a) was wrong about God, (b) the
passage was wrong about God or (c) I misunderstood the passage. If
after such consideration, I still find myself believing they way I did
before and I believe I read the passage correctly, then logic dictates
that I conlcude the passage was wrong.

snip

The Bible is a collection of writings, written by different authors
over a period of many years. There is no inconsistency in believing
that some of those writings are the inspired word of God while some
are not;

Your only possible reason for doing so would be your preconceived
notions about god.

My reason for doing so would be the fact that the passage seemed to me
to conflict with something I believe about God,

That is what I said; thank you once again.

and after
consideration I still believe what I believed about God. That's what
any rational persom *must* do.

No, Keith, rational people are under no obligation to reject
information because it rejects their preconceived notions.

That is
what you do. That is what you have described yourself as doing.

In other words you are not learning anything about
god from the Bible; you are judging it against a god you already have
in mind.

Not really, not when I am using specific desriptions of God given in
the bible.

Which you would reject if they conflicted with what you already
believed and for no other objective reason.

there is no inconsistency in thinking that God's inspiration

was filtered through fallen human beings who sometimes allowed their
own prejudices to seep into the message.

It is clearly a totally irrational method of communication. Some of
the writers, according to you, allowed their own prejudices to seep
into the message. You, on the other hand, have been able to separate
what is true and what is not. That position is highly inconsistent,
in that you free yourself from the failings of other humans, in the
case at hand other humans who have supposedly been working under
divine inspiration.

Not at all. Obviously I could be wrong. But I have no choice but use
my own judgment to decide what's true or false; necessarily I believe
what my judgment shows me--you do too.

If I base my judgement not on available objective evidence (i.e. the
Bible contradicts itself constantly, therefore it is unreliable) but
actually reject that evidence because it conflicts with my
preconceived notions, I am being irrational. It is what you describe
yourself as doing.

Duh!! Those things I think are true amazingly agree with those things
I think are true! That's pretty much the same for everyone on earth,
Thomas.

Not everyone, some of us try to test our perceptions against reality
and not base them on what we like or do not like; which is your method
of discerning the will of your god.

Not on what I like or dislike. I try (like you) to compare my beliefs
against reality, but like you all I have are my beliefs about
reality--there is nothing you know that isn't also something you
believe, and everything you believe is something you *think*
corresponds to reality.

The total lack of validity in your argument is revealed once again by
your inevitable reliance on solipsism as your final argument.

I like you, encounter new things and add new
beliefs, and when I notice an inconsistency between my new belief and
an old one I give up one or both of the conflicting beliefs. But at
any particular moment, there are things that I believe are true, and
amazingly those things agree with the things I believe are true.

(snip)

You are nuts if you think there is an inconsistency in believing those
things you think are true and disbelieving those things you do not
think are true.

That's right Keith! Don't ever respond to what might possibly make
you question your position. Making believe that something else has
been said is so much easier.

Your charge here is absurd. Nothing I have said implies I don't
question my position. You are reading into my position your own
prejudices.

That must be it.