05 Nov 13
Originally posted by galveston75
But I'm not the one who gave them their life, God did. So no I would have no right to ever take their life.
But getting back to my original question which was based on how some feel that God has taken from our viewpoint, innocent life's in the past as with the flood or when his people were ordered by him to attack other nations. Was God wrong and cruel in doing that? Did he have justification at all?
But I'm not the one who gave them their life, God did. So no I would have no right to ever take their life.
Well, there is indeed a sense in which you and your spouse proximately "gave them their life". But, regardless, what does the origin or source of their life have to do with anything here? Why is that a relevant consideration? I would have thought that the relevant considerations here would be related not to the source of life, but rather to what sorts of beings your children are. For example, what sorts of capacities do they have; are they such that they stand to be harmed or benefitted according to the actions of others; do they possess perspectives from which things can go worse or better; can they suffer; etc; etc. These would seem to be the relevant considerations. The consideration you bring up appears, in contrast, to be morally irrelevant here.
Since you think your consideration is relevant, we should consider a hypothetical. Suppose, hypothetically, that you did develop and possess the ability to spontaneously create another sentient creature -- for example, suppose you could simply create at will a puppy, or another human being. Upon doing so, would you have the right to treat that sentient creature just any old way you pleased?
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by checkbaiter
God has the right to do whatever he pleases. He can kill and raise them back up to life if he so chooses. He will not violate his own word.
God has the right to do whatever he pleases.
In virtue of what? Do you have some actual argument to back up this claim?
05 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, it is quite different from the potter/clay case. A pot has no psychological capacities in virtue of which it could qualify as a moral person or moral patient. In stark contrast, the cases at issue here concern moral patients. A moral patient, of course, is such that it matters how one treats it, and not just derivatively so. So, you're confused.
God gives and takes away, God puts up and takes down. No different than
the story within scripture about potter and clay, the universe is His to do
with as He wills.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloI beg to differ, if God gives you life and retains the right to take it back and
Actually, it is quite different from the potter/clay case. A pot has no psychological capacities in virtue of which it could qualify as a moral person or moral patient. In stark contrast, the cases at issue here concern moral patients. A moral patient, of course, is such that it matters how one treat it, and not just derivatively so. So, you're confused.
do whatever He wants with it, because all He creates is His, all that occurs
to you by the will of God is God doing what He wills with His own. You can
of course reject His Lordship, you may reject His Kingdom, that does not at
all mean your just and right in doing so. You owe your life to God like it or
not as you owe Him all you have.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJay
I beg to differ, if God gives you life and retains the right to take it back and
do whatever He wants with it, because all He creates is His, all that occurs
to you by the will of God is God doing what He wills with His own. You can
of course reject His Lordship, you may reject His Kingdom, that does not at
all mean your just and right in doing so. You owe your life to God like it or
not as you owe Him all you have.
Kelly
if God gives you life and retains the right to take it back and
do whatever He wants with it
Are you not paying attention? This thread was designed to usher in debate on whether or not it is the case that God has such a right. You don't just get to assume that He does. That's called begging the question. Instead, you need to actually present some argument that works toward this as a conclusion....
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes, He has the right, the power, and is justified in what He does with Hisif God gives you life and retains the right to take it back and
do whatever He wants with it
Are you not paying attention? This thread was designed to usher in debate on whether or not it is the case that God has such a right. You don't just get to assume that He does. That's called begging the question. Instead, you need to actually present some argument that works toward this as a conclusion....
own. You attempting to belittle me calling me confused isn't changing any
of those facts. You can say He does not, but stop Him and demand He do
what you will with His own and make a case He cannot that would bind Him
to your will.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, He has the right, the power, and is justified in what He does with His
own. You attempting to belittle me calling me confused isn't changing any
of those facts. You can say He does not, but stop Him and demand He do
what you will with His own and make a case He cannot that would bind Him
to your will.
Kelly
Yes, He has the right,
Do you have any actual argument that shows this?
You can say He does not, but stop Him and demand He do
what you will with His own and make a case He cannot that would bind Him
to your will.
Yes, we already know that He is supposed to be more powerful than us and that He would be able to impose His will successfully. That's not relevant to the discussion.
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat right? You have some standard beyond God's will to do what He willYes, He has the right,
Do you have any actual argument that shows this?
You can say He does not, but stop Him and demand He do
what you will with His own and make a case He cannot that would bind Him
to your will.
Yes, we already know that He is supposed to be more powerful than us and that He would be able to impose His will successfully. That's not relevant to the discussion.
that you can hold God to? Seriously, whose standard can you bring to God?
I'm not even talking about power, you lose there without a doubt, but what
standard of justice can you bind God too? In our dealings with each other
we can go to the laws we write to bind ourselves to, to bring up a complaint
against a fellow man. Now God writes His own Laws according to His own
nature to bind Himself too, no one else can or does. He is God the One and
only standard. He will on judgment day bring everything out in the open for
all to see, where everyone's actions will be judged, we will see what God
has done, what we have done, and everyone will witness it all.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI still don't see any actual argument from you that supports your contention that God has the right under discussion in this thread....
What right? You have some standard beyond God's will to do what He will
that you can hold God to? Seriously, whose standard can you bring to God?
I'm not even talking about power, you lose there without a doubt, but what
standard of justice can you bind God too? In our dealings with each other
we can go to the laws we write to bind ourselves to, to brin ...[text shortened]... ged, we will see what God
has done, what we have done, and everyone will witness it all.
Kelly
If, as you claim, our laws bind moral agents such as ourselves; then why wouldn't those same laws bind God, who is also a moral agent according to your view? Your view of morality strikes me as bizarre. Why would there be one particular moral agent, God, who is not bound by those laws that you claim bind other moral agents?
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloGod has setup laws with man, but at no time in any of those laws or
I still don't see any actual argument from you that supports your contention that God has the right under discussion in this thread....
If, as you claim, our laws bind moral agents such as ourselves; then why wouldn't those same laws bind God, who is also a moral agent according to your view? Your view of morality strikes me as bizarre. Why would the ...[text shortened]... ticular moral agent, God, who is not bound by those laws that you claim bind other moral agents?
covenants does God relinquish His right or authority at any time. The latest
was with God when Jesus came, even there at no time does God give up
what is His, the right to do with His own.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen I gave life to my son I never considered it in terms of 'rights' that I acquired. Though, as a matter of fact, I did acquire some (the right to choose a name for him, whether he will be privately or state educated etc).
What right? You have some standard beyond God's will to do what He will
that you can hold God to? Seriously, whose standard can you bring to God?
I'm not even talking about power, you lose there without a doubt, but what
standard of justice can you bind God too? In our dealings with each other
we can go to the laws we write to bind ourselves to, to brin ...[text shortened]... ged, we will see what God
has done, what we have done, and everyone will witness it all.
Kelly
At no point did I think I acquired any kind of ownership rights over him. I thought instead about the duties I owed him such as to feed and clothe him, keep him safe, educate him etc until he reached adulthood.
If I suggested that I had the right to deprive him of his life, you would call me mad. I don't see why God would think in other terms.
At this point, as we have already seen, people just say 'But God is different and who are you to judge him'. Which goes back to my God v Satan thread. If you can't use human judgement to judge the actions of something purporting to be God, how on earth can you know you aren't worshipping Satan in disguise?
However, is the only argument that people have that God has the right because he is God?
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by galveston75OK, answer me this. There are at least two accounts in the Bible, I believe, where children are killed by God. There may well be more.
But I'm not the one who gave them their life, God did. So no I would have no right to ever take their life.
But getting back to my original question which was based on how some feel that God has taken from our viewpoint, innocent life's in the past as with the flood or when his people were ordered by him to attack other nations. Was God wrong and cruel in doing that? Did he have justification at all?
Please justify to me why this is acceptable, other than by the 'because he is God' argument.
To clarify, I want an explanation as to why the omnipotent God killed innocent children instead of using his unlimited power to choose an alternative option that did not involve their murder.