29 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it's not an unexplained dilemma.
the explanation is rather simple. he did not create us, we created him, and with that creation we passed all our flaws onto him.
he did not create us, we created him, and with that creation we passed all our flaws onto him.
That men do pass on their flaws to invented gods I do not dispute.
That you take it so far in the record of the Holy Bible, I reject.
The insinuation is that you, VoidSpirit would of course ALWAYS approve of and agree with everything any Creator God did.
Look at your life and some of the sins you have committed.
I would rather expect that you like all the rest of us sinners would not approve of God's ways all the times.
Until I am fully conformed to the image of Christ in the new heaven and new earth, I suspect there will be at least some actions of God that I do not quickly agree with.
By and large, I think I'm definitely on the right track to trust Him.
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillSome actions I do not understand fully.
[quote] So, basically you think you can get away with calling God 'good' whenever you want, even when His actions fail, in basic ways, to meet our intuitions regarding predication of that term; moreover, you think others cannot justifiably predicate 'evil' unto Him even when His actions succeed, in basic ways, in meeting our intuitions regarding predication ...[text shortened]... think someone died in Noah's flood that shouldn't have died ? Go ahead. Not me.
I still trust God.
Yes, you trust that His actions are morally excellent even when they appear obviously morally reprehensible. That's not "moral exemplarity" on that part of God. That is just your intellect taking a holiday.
For your edification, here is an example of how actual moral exemplarity works: X, the moral exemplar, serves characteristically as a model in his actions, where others can come to understand the goodness of X's action and progressively incorporate them into their own service. On the other hand, here is how bizarro moral exemplarity works: X, the bizarro moral exemplar, undertakes actions that wreak havoc, suffering and death in ways that frustrate even the most basic moral intuitions of X's followers. Regardless of this, X's followers resolve to keep calling such actions "good" anyway, despite the fact that they are actually reprehensible and these follower's have absolutely no intention of ever incorporating such harrowing actions into their own service.
Your God, unfortunately, is a moral exemplar of the bizarro type. I'd like to see you actually incorporate into your own service His methods of good "discipline" (that's according to your own view of it), which amount to visiting suffering and death on hapless victims.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillWhile it may well be true that some atheists would try to trivialise god, that is not in general
"biblegod" ...
This name calling of the skeptic or atheist is an attempt to trivialize God.
I once knew an atheist who always referred to "godthingy".
the reason for an atheist saying 'biblegod'.
From an atheistic (or any general) standpoint there are a myriad possible god concepts, and
atheism is the position of believing none of them.
When we refer to god it's often as a general catch all for any and all god concepts that have
been, or could be thought of or exist.
Thus 'biblegod' or 'god of the bible' is simply making it clear that its the Christian god as described
in the bible that is under discussion.
Because if I were to say "I believe god is evil because he committed genocide by sending the great
flood" then a Hindu (say) would respond by saying, "but my god didn't do that" or similar.
It's the Abrahamic 'god of the bible' that is supposed to have sent the flood as it is described in the
bible.
As an atheist I have no reason to rate any god concept as more likely than any other, and I generally
try to frame my arguments for non-belief in such a way that they apply to any and all god concepts.
As such, if I am actually making an argument that specifically relates to a specific god, then I need to
specify that I am not in this instance using the term 'god' as a catch all for any and all deities but the
specific god I am talking about.
Also as I [and atheists generally] argue that without any evidence for a god there is nothing we can say
about what any god that might actually exist is actually like.
However if you are making an argument about a specific god concept it's important to say where this
particular god concept is coming from.
In the case of the god described in the bible, the concept is coming from the bible, so 'biblegod' or 'god
of the bible' are perfectly reasonable and legitimate ways of making this clear.
And does nothing to trivialise that god, existent or not.
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillpresumably you wouldn't object if i took it to the record of the koran, to the enuma elish or to some other mythical revelation. it is already known to me that you hold the bible to exclusive standards since it is your chosen vocation.he did not create us, we created him, and with that creation we passed all our flaws onto him.
That men do pass on their flaws to invented gods I do not dispute.
That you take it so far in the record of the Holy Bible, I reject.
i don't hold the "holy" bible to any higher standards than the koran, the enuma elish, the tasks of heracles or sherlock holmes. they are all literary works with fictional characters; protagonists and villains.
The insinuation is that you, VoidSpirit would of course ALWAYS approve of and agree with everything any Creator God did.
that is not a correct insinuation of what i portray. i approve of deeds on a meritorious basis; praise that which deserves praise and scorn that which deserves scorn.
biblegod is about as worthy of praise as he is worthy of scorn. if he wasn't mentally ill, he would make a great god.
Look at your life and some of the sins you have committed.
i have committed no sins.
I would rather expect that you like all the rest of us sinners would not approve of God's ways all the times.
Until I am fully conformed to the image of Christ in the new heaven and new earth, I suspect there will be at least some actions of God that I do not quickly agree with.
By and large, I think I'm definitely on the right track to trust Him.
having seen you defend slavery, genocide (and capital punishment? can't remember if that was you), which of biblegod's ways to you actually disapprove?
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHe has NEVER said he made any mistakes. He has made the comment he regreted making man at one time but he did not say it was a mistake.
i haven't made any claims that god made mistakes.
what i said was that biblegod has made mistakes, and he confesses to having made them in the bible.
Do you understand the differance?
I can say my children have done things I would never approve of and it has hurt me as a parent and it's possible that some parents have actually regreted having children for many reasons. It could be from some terrible things their children may have done to others or even because of some terrible things that happened to their children that may have caused the children much suffering.
One could say "I wish I had not had children because of the torture they had in some concentration camp" as the Jews suffered so much in.
So if this is the statement you are referring to then you are wrong.
30 Jan 12
8 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Some actions I do not understand fully.
I still trust God.
Yes, you trust that His actions are morally excellent even when they appear obviously morally reprehensible. That's not "moral exemplarity" on that part of God. That is just your intellect taking a holiday.
For your edification, here is an example of how actual moral exemplar r own view of it), which amount to visiting suffering and death on hapless victims.
Yes, you trust that His actions are morally excellent even when they appear obviously morally reprehensible. That's not "moral exemplarity" on that part of God. That is just your intellect taking a holiday.
[/b] No it isn't. I don't find it "morally reprehensible" that the Creator and Ultimate Governor of human life Who alone GAVE life has the authority to decide when a life should end, ended some lives.
And especially when such a God sees that "My Spirit will not strive with man forever, for he indeed is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years." (Gen. 6:3) .
He sees that man has become something wayward that God will not strive with in his conscience forever without end. A limit will be on his physical life.
Furthermore, in striving with His Spirit to convict the conscience of sinners, for a whole human society He saw "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his [man's] heart was ONLY evil CONTINUALLY" (v.5) and that "the earth was filled with violence ... behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth." (v.12) and that God saw "the END of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence because of them ..." (v.13)
I do not find that God decided to destroy that world of mankind accept for a remnant who "found favor in the sight of Jehovah" (v.8) reprehensible.
Some unimaginable occultic things were taking place between humans and fallen angels effecting the birth of some humans in deeply Satanic ways, (Nephilim (v.4) ) needed judging.
I do not find it "reprehensible" that God flooded such a world after "Noah, a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5) preached warning to them for over 100 years.
Eight souls were saved. The number 8 is a number signifying resurrection. Christ rising on the FIRST day of a new week - the 8th day, signally a new beginning.
I do not suspend any moral judgment. That a man like VoidSpirit says "I have commited no sins" and proceeds to condemn God, THAT I find reprehensible.
Some will imagine that in that flood innocent people died. He doesn't KNOW that. He imagines that. How does he know children died ?
And even if some children did indeed die in that flood, I may not like that. I may find that a difficult point to justify. But I don't find God's sovereignty, His omniscience, His divine and transcendent providence behind His judgment "reprehensible". There is no suspending of moral judgment.
Every day the God of the universe must decide WHO should die today and WHO should not and how. I may not even envy that responsibility for a few people. God has that responsibility for BILLIONS of people.
I have faith that He who oversees the interactions of every atom throughout the entire universe, for whom the hairs on our head are all numbered, for whom the unnumbered stars are all counted one by one, for whom every thought of the imagination of all living people is evaluated simultaneously with infallible clarity, for whom not even a sparrow can fall to the ground without His notice, God the Almighty, will as "the Judge of all the earth" (Gen. 18:26) not err.
Abraham had this argument with God when God informed him that He was about to judge Sodom and Gamorrah. He examined boldly God's way to see if God would be unfair to judge the righteous along with the wicked. I agree with Abraham's conclusion -
"Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly ?"
If you look at the details of the rest of the Bible you will learn that there was a angelic plot to totally derail God's plan by so corrupting man with a mixture of the Satanic and the human.
There are left today many evil angelic beings who followed Satan's plot to oppose God. There is another class of evil angels who were acting upon the human race in the days of Noah, that were reserved to be confined from ANY freedom. They were involved in something so reprehensible and dangerous that they were locked in "eternal chains" of some special imprisonment for some extra hieneous acts.
But as to the humans, God made an example of that world. And that He did does not cause any suspension of moral judgment on my part. I take from it what lessons which are apparently aimed at latter generations to learn.
The rest of your comments I will have to examine latter.
30 Jan 12
2 edits
This sentence I wrote:
Every day the God of the universe must decide WHO should die today and WHO should not and how. I may not even envy that responsibility for a few people. God has that responsibility for BILLIONS of people.
Should not be twisted or misunderstood. I do not mean that I would not and do not intervene to save a human life.
It means that everyday people die. I would not envy the respondibility to decide WHO today should die and WHO should not, for the whole earth.
Anyone want the job ?
Anyone want to do our best to save lives, but let God be God ?
30 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
presumably you wouldn't object if i took it to the record of the koran, to the enuma elish or to some other mythical revelation. it is already known to me that you hold the bible to exclusive standards since it is your chosen vocation.
i don't hold the "holy" bible to any higher standards than the koran, the enuma elish, the tasks of heracles or sherl can't remember if that was you), which of biblegod's ways to you actually disapprove?
i have committed no sins.
You are sinless ?
Go ask your family if they would agree. You're self deceived badly.
having seen you defend slavery, genocide (and capital punishment? can't remember if that was you), which of biblegod's ways to you actually disapprove?
For one who says he has committed no sins, I count the above paragraph to contain a lie.
You saw me discuss the various forms of slavery. You saw me offer caveats to the slavery recorded in some places in the Bible.
You also saw me point out the prohibition against kidnapping in your so called slavery defending Bible. Both in old testament and new you saw me point out that stealing people to enslave them was not biblical and for that it is no wonder that the Abolotionists (Mennonite, Quaker, and Methodist ones) successfully utilized the Bible to put that evil institution away.
So sinless VoidSpirit, stop lying. That is a sin.
You also saw me discuss your so-called genocide and point out at least arguable details that such "genocide" may not be an appropriate charge against what happened in the book of Joshua.
I said here, at least arguable. A difficult case it may be.
And I don't think I will have that debate over again with the same person.
30 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Some actions I do not understand fully.
I still trust God.
Yes, you trust that His actions are morally excellent even when they appear obviously morally reprehensible. That's not "moral exemplarity" on that part of God. That is just your intellect taking a holiday.
For your edification, here is an example of how actual moral exemplar r own view of it), which amount to visiting suffering and death on hapless victims.
For your edification, here is an example of how actual moral exemplarity works: X, the moral exemplar, serves characteristically as a model in his actions, where others can come to understand the goodness of X's action and progressively incorporate them into their own service. On the other hand, here is how bizarro moral exemplarity works: X, the bizarro moral exemplar, undertakes actions that wreak havoc, suffering and death in ways that frustrate even the most basic moral intuitions of X's followers. Regardless of this, X's followers resolve to keep calling such actions "good" anyway, despite the fact that they are actually reprehensible and these follower's have absolutely no intention of ever incorporating such harrowing actions into their own service.[/b]
Your God, unfortunately, is a moral exemplar of the bizarro type. I'd like to see you actually incorporate into your own service His methods of good "discipline" (that's according to your own view of it), which amount to visiting suffering and death on hapless victims.
I don't know from what philosophical atheist book you unearthed that from.
I'll read that about two more times but I don't sense much edification.
What I do know is that my destiny is to be conformed to the image of Christ the Firstborn Son of God.
In that ongoing process I expect that having the conformity incomplete, some actions of God I may misjudge. But I see the goal towards which God is moving me - to the image of Christ. And I am sure I am on the right track.
I also know that of all people on earth QUALIFIED to point out any moral deficiencies in the God of the Old Testament Jesus of Nazareth was that most qualified one to do so. I noticed that He did not. Rather He said:
"Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me." (John 17:25)
That really edifies me.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywilli am not without faults, but i am without sin.i have committed no sins.
You are sinless ?
Go ask your family if they would agree. You're self deceived badly.
my family doesn't recognize the authority of your biblegod either.
[quote]
having seen you defend slavery, genocide (and capital punishment? can't remember if that was you), which of biblegod's ways to you actually disapprove?
For one who says he has committed no sins, I count the above paragraph to contain a lie.
You saw me discuss the various forms of slavery. You saw me offer caveats to the slavery recorded in some places in the Bible.
You also saw me point out the prohibition against kidnapping in your so called slavery defending Bible. Both in old testament and new you saw me point out that stealing people to enslave them was not biblical and for that it is no wonder that the Abolotionists (Mennonite, Quaker, and Methodist ones) successfully utilized the Bible to put that evil institution away.
[/quote]
like i said, you defended slavery in the bible.
So sinless VoidSpirit, stop lying. That is a sin.
lying is not a sin, it's an ethical violation. but there was no lie in my statement.
You also saw me discuss your so-called genocide and point out at least arguable details that such "genocide" may not be an appropriate charge against what happened in the book of Joshua.
I said here, at least arguable. A difficult case it may be.
And I don't think I will have that debate over again with the same person.
like i said, you defended genocide in the bible.
you're right, we don't have to debate it over again. the debates resolved to the conclusion that you defend slavery and genocide as long as it is commanded or endorsed by biblegod. biblegod can do no wrong in your theology. these conclusions are established and need no further discussion.
30 Jan 12
1 edit
here is how bizarro moral exemplarity works: X, the bizarro moral exemplar, undertakes actions that wreak havoc, suffering and death in ways that frustrate even the most basic moral intuitions of X's followers. Regardless of this, X's followers resolve to keep calling such actions "good" anyway, despite the fact that they are actually reprehensible and these follower's have absolutely no intention of ever incorporating such harrowing actions into their own service.
Perhaps you could point out to me specifically where God asks me to incoporate some morally reprehensible action to perform.
I expect you to point to a command directed at me as a Christian telling me to do something you think is morally reprehensible.
Now God DID command the army of Joshua to carry out some one time, apparently non-repeatable matters. That these one time, non-repeatable, exemplary harsh judgments were the continous commands throughout the Old Testament is rather difficult to demonstrate. Nor is it easy to prove that they were wrong of God to do so.
At least it is arguable that it was deserved or not ( Noah's society, Sodom and Gamorrah, Amalekites, Amorites, Midianites).
If you didn't notice those instructions are not included in the Sermon on the Mount or in any epistle of the New Testament that I am aware of.
30 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75regret/repent/to be sorry
He has NEVER said he made any mistakes. He has made the comment he regreted making man at one time but he did not say it was a mistake.
Do you understand the differance?
these are confessions of a mistake that need to be corrected.
when the religious repent, it is because they made a mistake, they "sinned" and need to seek out forgiveness.
contextually, biblegod identified his mistake, was sorry for it and decided the only way to correct his mistake was to destroy what he had created and start over with a righteous man, presumably noah.
that turned out to be another mistake as biblegod realizes in genesis 8:21; as he is taking in the soothing aroma of some poor burning beast, he remembers that man is inherently evil from his "youth" and he will never again destroy all things on account of man.
well, poo. you should've thought of that before destroying the world in a mad-rage there, big guy.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywill1. Why would you do your best to save lives when you have no influence on the matter? It is God that decides whether to save lives or not.
It means that everyday people die. I would not envy the respondibility to decide WHO today should die and WHO should not, for the whole earth.
Anyone want the job ?
Anyone want to do our best to save lives, but let God be God ?
2. If someone murders someone else, why does he get blamed when it was God that decided that person should die?
30 Jan 12
7 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit[/quote]
i am not without faults, but i am without sin.
Go ask your family if they would agree. You're self deceived badly.
my family doesn't recognize the authority of your biblegod either.
[quote]
[quote]
having seen you defend slavery, genocide (and capital punishment? can't remember if that was you), which of biblegod's ways to y g in your theology. these conclusions are established and need no further discussion.
i am not without faults, but i am without sin.
Some of your "faults" are because of some of your sins.
my family doesn't recognize the authority of your biblegod either.
They don't have to. Just ask them all if you NEVER did anyone else dirt.
Better yet ask them how you would compare to Jesus whether they believe the Bible or not.
like i said, you defended slavery in the bible.
That is not what you said. Read what you said again.
"having seen you defend slavery ..."
lying is not a sin, it's an ethical violation. but there was no lie in my statement.
You said I defended slavery. Then you said I defended slavery in the bible.
At best the first is a gross exaggeration to the point of a slander. I think I will stick with "lie".
The second adjusted accusation is a subtle one. I will not have the same debate over again with you.
In short divorce was something God hated. He says so. Yet God did make some provisions for divorce to improve its outcome.
The SAME may be said for some forms of indeptedness leading to servitude, a wide spread practice in the ancient world.
And I did show you also comparisons in the way runaway slaves fared under the law of Moses as compared to the far worse ways they endured in other ancient Near East societies.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That includes you too.
Now you seem to speak of God but not the one of the Bible.
Who is that God?
What has that God spoken if anything?
What has that God done in history if anything?
Where did you learn about this non- bible God?
Are you sure you didn't just take the Bible God and attempt to strip away all that you don't like ?
Is the God you believe in have nothing to do with what you heard from the Bible ?