20 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAt some point even parents have to trust their kids to do the right
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 punishing the baby for falling into it. I think most would blame the parent in that scenario.
thing when the wrong thing is possible. At an age and level of
maturity you have to or the growth of the kids gets hindered. Simply
because there was the possiblity of doing the wrong thing is present
does not automatically mean it had to happen. They knew enough
they were old enough, they had no excuses though they made
plenty by blaming everyone but themselves.
Kelly
20 Sep 06
1 edit
Hi again,
Had some extra time, and I just wanted to share some further thoughts.
Many non-theists object to God killing off millions (the flood, the wars in Canaan, those who disobey him, etc.). Unfortunately, such denunciations run into some problems, both logical and existential:
* They deny the existence of evil and relativize morality. How then can they call any act immoral? How can they denounce anything? After all, something may be “true for you and not for me?” Relativism will not allow absolute denunciation. As Chesterton says, "All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern man doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it."
* They deny the existence of God (or at least claim that they do not know if He exists). If God exists, what does it matter for a finite human to curse Him, and if He doesn’t exist, who is really being cursed?
* Many people feel that their bodies are their own. As a result, society has given women the freedom to cut short the life (or potential life) that is within them during a pregnancy, and many acknowledge this as a good thing. Yet God is called evil for seemingly arbitrary choices concerning the taking of life. How can this conundrum be explained?
* They call killing (especially mass killing) “wrong,” but under relativism (which can easily lead to nihilism), nothing can be “wrong” or “right.” Why is it wrong to kill? Even evolutionary imperatives cannot explain it: for one thing, Hitler claimed his oppression was an example of the “superior” dominating or annihilating the “inferior.” Furthermore, why must life continue at all? According to materialism, the universe will end one day anyway, and all life will be swept into non-existence. Life, in the end, is absurd. Why should anyone care?
* By the same token, absolutist worldviews can make similar claims to the above and have a better chance of making them stick. Unfortunately, for an alleged absolute to have any viability, a transcendent element of some sort must be embraced. Yet this is what materialists are trying to disprove and not prove.
Any thoughts on these? As always, I welcome comments, PM or otherwise. Can't promise I'll be prompt in reply (other tasks and all 😉 ), but I can do my best to get to it eventually.
As always, fondest regards to both my theist and non-theist friends.
R
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarWhere to start...where to start? Let's just fire up the chainsaw and get to work, shall we?
Hi again,
Had some extra time, and I just wanted to share some further thoughts.
Many non-theists object to God killing off millions (the flood, the wars in Canaan, those who disobey him, etc.). Unfortunately, such denunciations run into some problems, both logical and existential:
* They deny the existence of evil and relativize morality. How then ...[text shortened]... to it eventually.
As always, fondest regards to both my theist and non-theist friends.
R
You don't need a god to have a moral standard. You can have moral standards without making them absolute. In otherwords, certain things may change as we gain more understanding on a particular matter or gain a more enlightened outlook. But some things, like murder, are frowned upon by every culture. We can see moral relativism at work within the bible. Slavery is an accepted institution within the bible, but you'd be hard pressed to find many christians who would advocate slavery these days. Why? Because times have changed. Our moral code has changed along with it. If it didn't then christians would still be defending slavery to this day.
If a skeptic 'curses god', he is doing so only metaphorically. When I charge god with genocide, I'm not proposing that he actually be brought up on charges, but am instead trying to point out logical contradictions within christianity.
Potential life is not life. Abortion and divine genocide are not the same thing.
Some things are always wrong, even under a relativist moral standard. Why is it wrong to kill? Because people do not like being killed and will take steps to stop it from happening. They do this themselves without reference to a god. As long as people would rather be alive than dead then murder will be considered wrong. Plus it must be pointed out that morality preceded christianity by many millenia. Life may be absurd, but in the end that's all there is. So it must be cherished and fostered while you're here.
Do moral absolutists consider genocide to be wrong? If so, then why don't they bat an eyelash at the fact their supposedly 'loving' god has commited genocide with gusto on more than one occasion?
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettDear rwingett:
Where to start...where to start? Let's just fire up the chainsaw and get to work, shall we?
You don't need a god to have a moral standard. You can have moral standards without making them absolute. In otherwords, certain things may change as we gain more understanding on a particular matter or gain a more enlightened outlook. But some things, like murder ...[text shortened]... supposedly 'loving' god has commited genocide with gusto on more than one occasion?
I know I am boring, but don't I deserve an answer to my question anyway?
Your friend,
FreakyKBH
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't know. Don't care.
From God's perspective, is there anything more important than physical life?
I have no idea what god's hypothetical perspective is, and would not give it any special consideration even if I did. Since you're obviously fishing for a certain answer, why don't you save us both the trouble and tell me what you think god considers to be more important than physical life?
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettDon't know. Don't care.
Don't know. Don't care.
I have no idea what god's hypothetical perspective is, and would not give it any special consideration even if I did. Since you're obviously fishing for a certain answer, why don't you save us both the trouble and tell me what you think god considers to be more important than physical life?
Well, why would you now? It is painfully clear that the only discussions you will engage in are those where you can control the structure, and therefore, the outcome. When you are subjected to a line of questioning that will lay bare your position's lack of cohesion, you tuck tail and run.
I have no idea what god's hypothetical perspective is, and would not give it any special consideration even if I did.
And yet, mysteriously, you have landed on some of God's attributes (omnipotence, omniscience), in spite of the fact that said attributes are revealed within a broad perspective of Scripture.
Since you're obviously fishing for a certain answer, why don't you save us both the trouble and tell me what you think god considers to be more important than physical life?
As Scripture reveals the total of God's intents for man, we find within the Bible that God's number one priority for man is the salvation of his soul. Thus, God's concern for man's soul overrides any and all concerns for man's physical body.
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by StarrmanI think it is a pretty good analogy because I accept some things a little differently than you. But that's OK.
The analogy fails because God had the choice, upon creating all the teeth, gums, jawbones etc. to make them impervious to infection. He knew the teeth would get infected and not only made them capable of becoming so, but also took it upon himself to extract them.
21 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957I'm not having a go, merely pointing out that the analogy only works if you ignore the omniscient/omnipotent aspects of godhead. But you're right, that's okay.
I think it is a pretty good analogy because I accept some things a little differently than you. But that's OK.
21 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour critique of my debating style is rubbish. I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops. If you think god's concern for man's soul overrides his concerns for man's body, the just say it and quit wasting everybody's time.
Don't know. Don't care.
Well, why would you now? It is painfully clear that the only discussions you will engage in are those where you can control the structure, and therefore, the outcome. When you are subjected to a line of questioning that will lay bare your position's lack of cohesion, you tuck tail and run.
I have no idea what god's God's concern for man's soul overrides any and all concerns for man's physical body.
So let us assume for the moment that saving man's soul is a worthy goal. The question remains, are any means justified in accomplishing that goal? Is genocide an acceptable means toward accomplishing that goal, or any other goal? The answer is NO. No amount of theistic moral relativism can justify genocide as an acceptable means toward any goal. Any party engaging in an act as heinous as genocide is to be condemned, regardless of their celestial status or the purported worthiness of their goal.
Any god could use genocide to accomplish his goals, of course, but he would automatically forfeit any claim to omnibenevolence, or being all-loving. Such a god would be a capricious, wrathful and malignant god, who is not morally perfect and who does not deserve worship. Especially if that god was supposdely omnipotent and could have chosen any number of other means to accomplish his goal. An all-loving and morally perfect god would have necessarily chosen a means less heinous than genocide. Any god that wilfully resorts to genocide is to be condemned, not worshipped.
As for the goal of saving man's souls, how effective was god's foray into genocide in accomplishing it? Were the people after the flood any less sinful than the people who were drowned en masse? Did god's mass extinction save any souls at all? No, it didn't. Salvation doesn't come through genocide. You don't need a theologian to tell you that. If salvation comes exclusively through Christ's sacrifice (supposedly), then just what purpose did the flood serve?
21 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettYour critique of my debating style is rubbish.
Your critique of my debating style is rubbish. I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops. If you think god's concern for man's soul overrides his concerns for man's body, the just say it and quit wasting everybody's time.
So let us assume fo through Christ's sacrifice (supposedly), then just what purpose did the flood serve?
Rubbish it may be, but truth it is, as well.
I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops.
The "preparatory hoops" are critical to the conclusion, so I'll thank you to allow me to make my points, if you'll simply suffer my laborious means of getting to them.
If you think god's concern for man's soul overrides his concerns for man's body, the just say it and quit wasting everybody's time.
What I think about God's concerns will only prove the point to me. The issue here is what you consider to be God's concerns. You have rightly gleaned some of God's attributes available only through the written Word, so the question remains whether or not you have also deduced what the Bible says about God's values.
So let us assume for the moment that saving man's soul is a worthy goal. The question remains, are any means justified in accomplishing that goal? The answer is NO.
Wait a tic. Weren't you the one who--- just a few posts back--- stated that the life was more important than the arm?
No amount of theistic moral relativism can justify genocide as an acceptable means toward any goal. Any party engaging in an act as heinous as genocide is to be condemned, regardless of their celestial status or the purported worthiness of their goal.
Let's go back and change a few of the nouns and verbs and see if your previous post is consistent. It would look something like this:
No amount of man's moral relativism can justify cutting off his arm as an acceptable means toward any goal. Any party engaging in an act as heinous as deliberate amputation is to be condemned, regardless of their ownership position or the purported worthiness of their goal.
Any man could use deliberate amputation to accomplish his goals, of course, but he would automatically forfeit any claim to self-respect, or being self-loving. Such a man would be a capricious, wrathful and malignant man, who is not morally perfect and who does not deserve respect. A self-loving and morally perfect man would have necessarily chosen a means less heinous than deliberate amputation. Any man that wilfully resorts to deliberate amputation is to be condemned, not respected.
In light of your previous post claiming that the arm was to be sarificed for the sake of the life, your current sentiment is inconsistent.
As for the goal of saving man's souls, how effective was god's foray into genocide in accomplishing it?
Other than Noah and his immediate family, those in Noah's day were incorrigible. They had so defiled the human race that extension of their lives would have ended the human race, rendering God's promise to the woman impossible to fulfill. God saved the human race by getting rid of those whose actions/decisions were effectively destroying the human race.
As the promise to the woman (her seed would crush the head of the serpent) entailed a virgin pregnancy which was still in the future during Noah's time, and as that pregnancy was to result in the forgiveness of all sin through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Flood preserved a remnant of believers through whom the promise would continue.
22 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo this is the unveiling of your grand conclusion? You must be joking. You wasted all that time and bandwidth for this? Do you seriously expect anyone to weigh the amputation of one arm as being equal with genocide? What a ludicrous proposition. The hiker cut off his own arm to save his own life. He didn’t didn’t kill anyone to reach his goal. Nor did he drown an entire planet. Those means would not have been justified in reaching his goal. Genocide can never be justified in reaching any goal, regardless of how worthy it may seem.
[b]Your critique of my debating style is rubbish.
Rubbish it may be, but truth it is, as well.
I invited you to make the point you were leading up to. It was not necessary to go through the tedious process of leading me through your preparatory hoops.
The "preparatory hoops" are critical to the conclusion, so I'll thank you to allow me to m d preserved a remnant of believers through whom the promise would continue.[/b]
As I pointed out repeatedly (an issue you have just as repeatedly sidestepped), the hiker was severely limited in his range of choices. He was constrained by external circumstances. A supposedly omnipotent god can have no such constraints. An omnipotent god could save man’s souls by any number of means without having to resort to genocide. If god was constrained into having no choice but genocide, then he is not omnipotent. A god which willfully resorts to genocide when he has unlimited means at his disposal is simply not an all-loving god. There is no way that genocide can be construed as an all-loving or morally perfect act. No amount of contorted apologetics can successfully reach that conclusion.
Let’s look at it from the other angle for a moment. Let’s assume that the hiker is omnipotent. Or if not omnipotent, then that he at least has the ability to move the rock pinning his arm. If he could move the rock and free his arm, then cutting off that same arm can no longer be defended. Doubly so if he was cutting off someone else’s arm, and not his own. We would necessarily expect him to free the arm in question with the least amount of suffering. If he still chose to cut off his own arm then we would call him crazy. If he cut off someone else’s arm then we would condemn him. But we would never call him all-loving or morally perfect.
Since you’ve seen fit to try to twist my position around by word substitution, let me try the same thing with something you said:
Other than Hitler and his master race, the Jews in Nazi Germany were incorrigible. They had so defiled the master race that extension of their lives would have ended the master race, rendering Hitler’s promise to the Germans impossible to fulfill. Hitler saved the master race by getting rid of those whose actions/decisions were effectively destroying the master race.
Doesn’t sound so good, does it? Whether it’s Hitler or god, genocide can never be condoned. No goal can justify it as an acceptable means. It can certainly never be contorted as being a morally perfect act.