Christian terrorism – the wrath of god

Originally posted by rwingett
Would you describe drowning the earth's population as an all-loving act, or would you not?

I don't know about Kelly, but I would describe God's act of drowning all but eight people as an act of an all-loving God.

My turn:
Would you describe the cutting off a man's arm an act of humanitarianism?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know about Kelly, but I would describe God's act of drowning all but eight people as an act of an all-loving God.

My turn:
Would you describe the cutting off a man's arm an act of humanitarianism?

If you would describe the drowning all but eight people as an act of an all-loving god, then you have no basis on which to decry the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler. If god had a "good" reason for commiting genocide, then maybe Hitler did too. By encompassing genocide within the definition of "all-loving", you have removed any useful standard for the term. You are engaging in moral relativism on a scale that not even the most ardent skeptic would.

Cutting off a man's arm may be a humanitarian act for a mere mortal. But for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, it is not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I describe it as God judging and acting on that judgment, the deaths
would have occured had they all died in their sleep from old age. The
fact that the deeds occuring brought about a judgment means only
one thing the earth was filled with sin to the point that God said
enough.
Kelly

So Hitler is not to be held accountable for the death of 6 million Jews? After all, they would have all eventually died anyway, so what's the big deal? That is the essence of what you are saying. Genocide may be the result of god's judgement, but it is not a good or necessary judgement. It is a judgement that is to be condemned, whether it comes from a heavenly dictator or from a human one.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Better stated:
Freewill is incompatible with your understanding of an omniscient God.

And what, exactly, is your understanding of the term omniscience? And how do you reconcile it with freewill?

Originally posted by rwingett
If you would describe the drowning all but eight people as an act of an all-loving god, then you have no basis on which to decry the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler. If god had a "good" reason for commiting genocide, then maybe Hitler did too. By encompassing genocide within the definition of "all-loving", you removed any useful standard for the term. Yo ...[text shortened]... umanitarian act for a mere mortal. But for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, it is not.

If you would describe the drowning all but eight people as an act of an all-loving god, then you have no basis on which to decry the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler.
You omit an important aspect of the valuation. You say 'no basis,' and yet forget that pesky little thing called 'intent.'

Cutting off a man's arm may be a humanitarian act for a mere mortal. But for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, it is not.
What scenario may permit such an act to be considered humanitarian?

Originally posted by rwingett
So Hitler is not to be held accountable for the death of 6 million Jews? After all, they would have all eventually died anyway, so what's the big deal? That is the essence of what you are saying. Genocide may be the result of god's judgement, but it is not a good or necessary judgement. It is a judgement that is to be condemned, whether it comes from a heavenly dictator or from a human one.

Well, when Hitler creates his own universe, sets up the laws of
physics we can talk about what Hitler can do to it without sinning.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If you would describe the drowning all but eight people as an act of an all-loving god, then you have no basis on which to decry the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler.
You omit an important aspect of the valuation. You say 'no basis,' and yet forget that pesky little thing called 'intent.'

Cutting off a man's arm may be a humanitarian act f ...[text shortened]... nt god, it is not.
What scenario may permit such an act to be considered humanitarian?[/b]

So if Hitler acted from good intentions then the holocaust could be praised as an all-loving act? Is that what you're saying? I don't know, but even as a so-called moral relativist, genocide is always to be condemned in my point of view. The ends do not justify the means. Epecially for an omniscient and omnibenevolent god.

I assume you were referring to the incident where a hiker got stuck by a rock and had to cut his own arm off to avoid death. If he was incapable of performing the operation himself and a third party had to do it, it could concievably be viewed as a "humanitarian" act. An omnipotent god could have simply moved the rock. An omnibenevolent god would have necessarily done so.

Originally posted by rwingett
And what, exactly, is your understanding of the term omniscience? And how do you reconcile it with freewill?

Omniscience:
God knows simultaneously all things outside of Himself. God knows all things about believers and unbelievers, both the actual and the possible (which could have happened but did not happen). Omniscience knows every thought, decision, and action in human history, and how they all relate to each other, and how they relate to all the possible alternatives.

His omniscience is categorized three ways:
Eternal
Incomprehnsible
Wise


His ominscience is perfectly compatible with freewill, in that His will and man's will are co-existing through-out human history, without loss or diminishment of either. His foreknowledge of man's actions does not necessitate that man is not free to act in whatever manner he chooses. Your actions are proof of the same.

Originally posted by rwingett
So if Hitler acted from good intentions then the holocaust could be praised as an all-loving act? Is that what you're saying? I don't know, but even as a so-called moral relativist, genocide is always to be condemned in my point of view. The ends do not justify the means. Epecially for an omniscient and omnibenevolent god.

I assume you were referring to ...[text shortened]... god could have simply moved the rock. An omnibenevolent god would have necessarily done so.

So if Hitler acted from good intentions then the holocaust could be praised as an all-loving act?
You cannot be serious. Everyone acts with "good intentions." The crux is defining the standard of 'good.' Hitler's acts (in his mind) were nothing but good. It is impossible for man to act in a manner contrary to that which would bring him happiness. The problem is not knowing/choosing the right path.

An omnipotent god could have simply moved the rock. An omnibenevolent god would have necessarily done so.
That wasn't the situation I had in mind, but we can work with it, nonetheless. The man cutting off his own arm is making a conscious decision, relative to choice, correct? What are his choices?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Omniscience:
God knows simultaneously all things outside of Himself. God knows all things about believers and unbelievers, both the actual and the possible (which could have happened but did not happen). Omniscience knows every thought, decision, and action in human history, and how they all relate to each other, and how they relate to all the possible ...[text shortened]... hat man is not free to act in whatever manner he chooses. Your actions are proof of the same.

So god knew, even before he created them, that Adam and Eve would eat from the apple. From your definition of omniscience this is necessarily so. How, then, were they "free" to have done otherwise? And more importantly, how are they to be held accountable for their actions when god knew in advance what the outcome would be, but allowed it to proceed? The only possible conclusion is that god wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the apple. They were inteded to fail. To punish them so horribly for fulfilling this inevitable outcome is cruel in the extreme.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So if Hitler acted from good intentions then the holocaust could be praised as an all-loving act?
You cannot be serious. Everyone acts with "good intentions." The crux is defining the standard of 'good.' Hitler's acts (in his mind) were nothing but good. It is impossible for man to act in a manner contrary to that which would brin ...[text shortened]... wn arm is making a conscious decision, relative to choice, correct? What are his choices?[/b]

It is simply not true that everyone acts from good intentions. Many people know they are commiting evil but do so anyway. But my point is that a crime like genocide is to be condemned despite any intentions that were behind it. It is always an evil act, regardless of whether it receives a divine sanction or not. No end can justify that means toward acheiving it.

The man's choices were to cut off his own arm or die. An omnipotent god is not similarly constrained in his range of choices.

Originally posted by rwingett
So god knew, even before he created them, that Adam and Eve would eat from the apple. From your definition of omniscience this is necessarily so. How, then, were they "free" to have done otherwise? And more importantly, how are they to be held accountable for their actions when god knew in advance what the outcome would be, but allowed it to proceed? The on ...[text shortened]... il. To punish them so horribly for fulfilling this inevitable outcome is cruel in the extreme.

So god knew, even before he created them, that Adam and Eve would eat from the apple. From your definition of omniscience this is necessarily so. How, then, were they "free" to have done otherwise?
Whatever the fruit was, God knew the end from before the beginning and nothing surprises Him.
Before the woman ate of the fruit, was she doing so freely, or is only the act of disobedience not free?

Originally posted by rwingett
It is simply not true that everyone acts from good intentions. Many people know they are commiting evil but do so anyway. But my point is that a crime like genocide is to be condemned despite any intentions that were behind it. It is always an evil act, regardless of whether it receives a divine sanction or not. No end can justify that means toward acheivin ...[text shortened]... off his own arm or die. An omnipotent god is not similarly constrained in his range of choices.

Many people know they are commiting evil but do so anyway.
They, like all of us, are acting out their vision of happiness. Thus, their intentions are for (what they consider capable of causing) the greater good.

The man's choices were to cut off his own arm or die. An omnipotent god is not similarly constrained in his range of choices.
Arm or die. Therefore, life was the best possible good in his case. True?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So god knew, even before he created them, that Adam and Eve would eat from the apple. From your definition of omniscience this is necessarily so. How, then, were they "free" to have done otherwise?
Whatever the fruit was, God knew the end from before the beginning and nothing surprises Him.
Before the woman ate of the fruit, was she doing so freely, or is only the act of disobedience not free?[/b]

God created Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, supposedly with free choice, but with no knowledge of good and evil.

God placed the Tree of Knowledge, unguarded and easily accessible, within the Garden of Eden.

God allowed the serpent to beguile Eve into eating from the tree.

It sounds like another setup to me. With those conditions it was only a matter of time before Adam and Eve went apple picking in the Eden Orchard. Even if the choice was supposedly 'free.' And god knew all along the exact second that Eve would sink her teeth into the fruit. it's like a parent placing a baby next to a pit of snakes and then punishing the baby for falling into it. I think most would blame the parent in that scenario.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Many people know they are commiting evil but do so anyway.
They, like all of us, are acting out their vision of happiness. Thus, their intentions are for (what they consider capable of causing) the greater good.

The man's choices were to cut off his own arm or die. An omnipotent god is not similarly constrained in his range of choices.
Arm or die. Therefore, life was the best possible good in his case. True?[/b]

That is simply not true. A murderer (most often) knows he is commiting an evil act and will run the risk of being punished for it. At no time does he think he's contributing the 'the greater good' through his actions. His personal hapiness, perhaps, but not the greater good. Your analogy here is simply ridiculous.

But I see you've opted to quit responding to the question of whether genocide can be justified. Obviously it can't, regardless of the reasons or intentions behind it.

Arm or die. Life was the best possible good in that particular case. Correct. But I repeat that god is not similarly constrained in his range of choices. Either that or he is simply not omnipotent.