Different Tan

[nameandnature]

ladysisyphus writes about why she is a Christian even though she cannot say unequivocally that Jesus Christ is her Lord and Saviour, which, as we all know, is the litmus of such things. People who thought that the Jerry Springer entry was intended to imply that I believed all American Christians were nutters, take note: there is at least one who is not. andrewducker says what I'd have said about truth and facts, in a conversation which reminds me of those I've had with cathedral_life.

People who read Hebrew might want to have a look at the huge thread on Creationism that developed under my post here, since some of it relies on what I suspect are standard Creationist assertions about the Hebrew used in Genesis. Or you might not: after I while, I learned to avoid the Creationism threads on uk.r.c, only popping out occasionally to ambush people with physics.

There are more photos of the musicals party, to add to bluap's. My camera's rubbish in low light, alas.

Random Flash linkage: To Kill A Mockingbird, Numa Numa. Been doing the rounds, but I mention it in case you've not seen it.

Update: I got a comment from someone recommending the CICCU mission talks this year (which have now been and gone). This has started a debate on whether God is just. Read all about it in the comments inside.

Comments

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

"Can God make a square circle?"
What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?
The way they resolve to the same thing is that if god is constrained by the system of logic that God is unable to do something for whatever reason.

God is unable to do something
Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?
The issue here is whether the omnipotent being created the system of logic itself, and therefore whether that being is able to transcend the limitations of logic that we are bound by as limited beings existing within the universe created by the omnipotent being.

You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process
No not really. I accept that we are using different definitions of what omnipotence is - yours is the most widely used by theists now, that I accept; but I am not alone in the way I am defining omnipotence. It would seem to be more fruitful to continue on the basis that I understand that with your definition of omnipotence God is only able to do things which are not logically contradictory.

As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).
So if free will is not required for love then presumably a robot could love?

One might ask what the point of giving humanity free will in the first place was, the consequence of it (which God would have known in advance) was that humanity fucked up creation by introducing evil into the world (let's ignore the fact that the devil rebelled before man for the moment!). If man was able to love without free will then it was clearly a mistake for God to give it to man, God could have made mankind able to love him without the fall.

I would say that love requires a choice, and for there to be choice one must have free will. Therefore if you do not have free will you cannot choose, and if you can't choose you can't love.