Knight's pick 8-22-2007

[Nathon Detroit]

No, I am adverse to poor analogies and assumptions.

Clete used the analogy because Mystery brought it up.

Maybe before you open your mouth and cram your foot in it for the umpteenth time, you should stop and read what is being posted so you can at least give the impression you are trying to be objective.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"To extend your analogy, your position turns God into a block of ice! God does what He does, not because He chose to do so but because it was an unavoidable result of His nature thus there is no virtue in such a God's actions or His nature any more than there is in the fact that ice is cold and sugar is sweet and that put together they make for a really great glass of tea."

Analogies aside, someone needs to refresh their understanding of the term "virtue".

God does what He does because His so doing is an unavoidable certainty of His nature, that is, because God is the perfect standard of what is right (virtue).

Just as it is unavoidable that adding ice to water will make the water cooler, so is it unavoidable that God must (not may) act with virtue.

Does the ice deserve praise for having made your drink colder?
No. Ice is inanimate. Praise (to glorify) is reserved for the living God.

Does God deserve praise for {insert any act of God here}?
Yes. God is the only being worthy of glorification.

Should we be thankful to the ice itself for having performed its job so predictably?
No. Gratitude should be reserved for the living not the inanimate.

Should we be thankful to God Himself for having performed so predictably?
Yes. God has revealed many aspects of His nature and attributes to us in the Scriptures. We should not be surprised by God's ways. God's revelation of Himself to us that assures us (makes certain) that His ultimate glory will be manifested.

The frozen water didn't decide to make your drink colder, it just happened that way because of the laws of chemistry.
Inanimate objects cannot "decide"

God decreed the universe and everything in it to exist so that His holy will would be glorified. God decreed thusly because God is inherently virtuous.

There was no virtue in the ice's "action" because it was not a choice but simply an unavoidable results of its nature.
Inanimate objects cannot be considered good by God's standards, therefore inanimate objects possess no inherent virtue.

There was infinite virtue in God's "action" because virtue is an unavoidable aspect of God's nature.

:ha: You are a complete moron! You couldn't catch a point if it were injected directly into your veins with a hypodermic needle!

Sorry, AMR, I have tried and tried to befriend you but then you go and make asinine posts like this one and all I can do is conclude you have absolutely no brains whatsoever.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Clete used the analogy because Mystery brought it up.

Maybe before you open your mouth and cram your foot in it for the umpteenth time, you should stop and read what is being posted so you can at least give the impression you are trying to be objective.

Don't blow one of your gaskets again, Knight. I have read the post and you know full well I am a regular participant in the original thread.

What you fail to understand is that

1. I disagree with the analogy used to point out the presumed fallacy in Mystery's "why does ice make your drink cold" question.

2. Mystery clearly misunderstood the players in the ice analogy. See here.

There was nothing in this POTD that claimed the "ice" was man and God was the "drink". In fact, it is patently obvious from the context of the discussion that was going on in the original thread that the "ice" was "God".

This is clear from the comment in the analogy, "There was no virtue in the ice's "action" because it was not a choice but simply an unavoidable results of its nature." This comment goes to the original thread's discussion that righteousness was the result of an action versus Mystery's assertions to the contrary.

From the original thread we find more of the same asserting that God must somehow act to be considered righteous in that same thread (underlining my own):

"If God cannot do otherwise how is He deserving of any thanks?" (God as the ice)

"...if breaking His promises is genuinely impossible for God, for whatever reason, then He warrants no praise for keeping them." (God as the ice)

My post points out the error of the analogy and the error in Mystery's assumptions about the analogy's objects. God was the ice in the analogy! Mystery's ex post facto interpretations otherwise are a credit to his reasoning, but in no way was what Mystery interpreted as "God" (the drink) in the analogy the original intent of the analogy. Indeed, God was the ice in the analogy so as to mock Mystery's comment...

"I do not think that God is righteous by His works. And I do not think that He chooses to act in our best interest."

...by using the passivity of ice to bolster the previous response to Mystery's comment above:

"Then, by definition, you [Mystery] do not believe God is righteous. You just believe that God is God and that's it."

Knight, if you were not so frequently quick on the draw to make POTD's before anyone has a chance to sort things out beforehand we would not be having this discussion now.

 

[Clete]

Inanimate objects cannot be considered good by God's standards, therefore inanimate objects possess no inherent virtue.

This is the point that my post was responding too, AMR! Mystery's analogy made God into an inanimate object and you stated plainly that you agree with that analogy when you said...

"God need not "choose to act" in anyone's best interests to be righteous."

Which you said just a few minutes after having said...

"Inanimate objects cannot "decide""


If God does not decide what action to take (i.e. choose) then there is no more virtue in God then there is in any other inanimate object you can think of, including both ice and tea!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Mystery]

Just to clear things up.

I did make the analogy of God being the ice when I said...

"...why does ice make your drink cold?"

Possibly not understanding the science behind it, it was a poor analogy. But, only because ice may not be the cause because of it's nature to do so. And so, Clete reversed the cause to the liquid, not for the purpose of agreeing to the formula, but to make his point about God and righteousness.

I made light of his post, and turned the tables on Clete because I do not care for nor do I agree with His view that God is righteous because He chooses to act in the best interest of others. God certainly does act in the best interest of others, I do not dispute that, but that is not why He is righteous. God was right before He ever did right.

 

[elected4ever]

When looking at God from a human perspective Clete is right.

When looking at God from a God perspective AMR is right.

Both are right from their individual perspective.

Should we be discerning from how a thing looks or actual truth?

That is my beef with human logic. We cannot always get to the truth by observation and logic. Unless our logic is tempered with what is actual truth then we come to false conclusions most of the time.

 

[Lighthouse]

When looking at God from a human perspective Clete is right.

When looking at God from a God perspective AMR is right.

Both are right from their individual perspective.

Should we be discerning from how a thing looks or actual truth?

That is my beef with human logic. We cannot always get to the truth by observation and logic. Unless our logic is tempered with what is actual truth then we come to false conclusions most of the time.

Moron.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I made light of his post, and turned the tables on Clete because I do not care for nor do I agree with His view that God is righteous because He chooses to act in the best interest of others. God certainly does act in the best interest of others, I do not dispute that, but that is not why He is righteous. God was right before He ever did right.

Indeed!:thumb:

 

[elected4ever]

Moron.

I guess from your self observation and your experiences you would conclude that others are the same as you. It figures.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

AMR, your rep comment to me was....

Neg reps are cowardly. Try to rise above them. They are poisonous to one's soul.

When are you going to learn?

Neg reps are not cowardly. We have made neg reps available for a reason, and that reason is to let someone know when they are making a stupid post. You made two stupid posts in a row and I was letting you know.

I have no problem using neg reps (heck, I am the guy who installed the system!), if I thought they were cowardly I wouldn't have made them available.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That is my beef with human logic.

I have noticed that you and logic seem to be at odds.

 

[PKevman]

Neg reps are not cowardly. We have made neg reps available for a reason, and that reason is to let someone know when they are making a stupid post. You made two stupid posts in a row and I was letting you know.

I have no problem using neg reps (heck, I am the guy who installed the system!), if I thought they were cowardly I wouldn't have made them available.

Better watch out Knight, you might get the RATO after you and informing you it is a sin to neg-rep. :rotfl:

 

[PKevman]

I honestly don't see why it is so hard for some to understand. If I have no choice but to love, then love is meaningless. If I cannot also choose to hate then what does it mean to love?

If I cannot choose to do bad, what is good? It is meaningless. God chooses not to do bad because of His goodness, not because He is some immovable force that has no will and no choice in the matter.

 

[Lighthouse]

I guess from your self observation and your experiences you would conclude that others are the same as you. It figures.

From God's POV, AMR is still wrong!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Better watch out Knight, you might get the RATO after you and informing you it is a sin to neg-rep.

For the love of God, man, please settle on an avatar. Now you are representing a Vietnam vet. I would have loved to have had you in one of my platoons while in Vietnam ('69-'70), just to see how far your open God would have taken you when the crap hit the fan. No doubt you would have been hoping I was right and that God had an irrevocable and inexhaustible plan to save your capricious, hate-mongering, hide.

:CRASH: "Ghee, I hope no one's libertarian free will overrides my (PK) desire to not get my EDITED shot off!"

:mockK the regal, behind the podium avatar

:mockK the bosom pal of Enyart avatar

:mockK the rabid, conflicted, traumatized Vietnam vet avatar

 

[PKevman]

For the love of God, man, please settle on an avatar. Now you are representing a Vietnam vet. I would have loved to have had you in one of my platoons while in Vietnam ('69-'70), just to see how far your open God would have taken you when the crap hit the fan. No doubt you would have been hoping I was right and that God had an irrevocable and inexhaustible plan to save your capricious, hate-mongering, hide.

:CRASH: "Ghee, I hope no one's libertarian free will overrides my (PK) desire to not get my a-s shot off!"

:mockK the regal, behind the podium avatar

:mockK the bosom pal of Enyart avatar

:mockK the rabid, conflicted, traumatized Vietnam vet avatar

It's a Rambo avatar you dimwit. Talk about blowing a gasket.

:mock: Ask Mr. Religion-the arrogant Calvinist.

I wasn't aware you had joined the "Avatar Police". :rotfl:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, your rep comment to me was....
When are you going to learn?

Neg reps are not cowardly. We have made neg reps available for a reason, and that reason is to let someone know when they are making a stupid post. You made two stupid posts in a row and I was letting you know.

I have no problem using neg reps (heck, I am the guy who installed the system!), if I thought they were cowardly I wouldn't have made them available.

Many have privately warned me that when sending PM's or reps with message content that you and others like to then post them in threads. I don't know why I don't heed their advice. I guess I assume wrongly that people will behave with a modicum of integrity. Ever hopeful, I will continue to do so.

You want to let me know I make posts you disagree with, then post as such. You apparently have no problem doing that, right?

Neg reps are for cowards, as my positive rep in response to your neg rep last night so indicated. Deal with it.

 

[Poly]

For the love of God, man, please settle on an avatar. Now you are representing a Vietnam vet. I would have loved to have had you in one of my platoons while in Vietnam ('69-'70), just to see how far your open God would have taken you when the crap hit the fan. No doubt you would have been hoping I was right and that God had an irrevocable and inexhaustible plan to save your capricious, hate-mongering, hide.

Yeah right! Because there's just so much comfort in putting your trust in God who could either decide to save his hide or destroy it in such a situation for no other reason than it was simply how He wanted to play the game with his created puppets.

 

[elected4ever]

From God's POV, AMR is still wrong!

I think so too but that doesn't make man's logic right ether. OV has its problems also.

 

[elected4ever]

I have noticed that you and logic seem to be at odds.

Sometimes. i agree some of what I say is illogical to me from a human standpoint. Having said that, I do not base my beliefs on human logic alone but look to God to inform my logic. My faith is quite dynamic in that it is constantly being modified as my knowledge base is expanded. I do not have a static faith. A person with a static faith is unteachable. I don't know if I will ever arrive this side of haven.