The "Horrific God" Charge

Originally posted by bbarr
I doubt many of the moderns "owe" their wisdom to Christianity. You might as well say they owe their wisdom to Plato (which is probably closer to true, though still grossly inaccurate). Obviously they all studied the Bible, and most were at least nominally Christians. They did, of course, inherit the cultural background we all do. But you can read the mode I'll be back once you indicate which premise of my argument you reject, and why.

I doubt many of the moderns "owe" their wisdom to Christianity.

If you didn't notice in the Western world history is divided BC - Before Christ, AD - In the Year of Our Lord.

The words and life of Jesus Christ have minimal effect of the thinking of culture in the West ?

We're speaking of someone whose life for 30 years is pretty obscure, Only THREE years of ministry from His baptism to His death (and resurrection ) was decisive.

You ranked yourself as 18 in moral knowledge and Jesus lower. What three years of your life have been the most significant bbarr ?

Jesus had around Him initially 11 men who were eventually willing to die for proclaiming the reality of His life and teachings. Maybe you have 10 or 12 students discipled in your thought.

Who are they ? What has their impact been ?

You rank yourself morally more knowledgeable than Christ ?
Maybe you have real delusions of granduer.
Maybe you mistake yourself for the person you'd like to be.

I wish I had access to about 50 of your closest aquaintences. I would immediately ask each of them if you compare to Jesus Christ in knowedge of morality. Do you think they would agree with your self evaluation ?

You might as well say they owe their wisdom to Plato (which is probably closer to true, though still grossly inaccurate).

Why isn't history in the West divided at the point BEFORE the life of Plato and AFTER or DURING the life of Plato then ?

Obviously they all studied the Bible, and most were at least nominally Christians. They did, of course, inherit the cultural background we all do. But you can read the moderns and understand them without having any deep knowledge of the Bible.

Seems this knowledge came indirectly from the enfluence of just living in the culture.

I wanted to be clear. Why do you think that's wanting to play it safe? I tend to try and clarify things so they make sense.

Okay. So do I. Then I get charged with being too verbose.

I did read more than once your long pasted article. Not sure what to respond yet since it seems to be carrying on an argument with someone else.

If you ask a question that uses a term like 'moral sensibility', and it's clear that you could mean any number of things by that term, and equally clear that you have no particular meaning in mind,

Sure I do have something in mind. Wise intructions for one's practical life as to morality.

and also clear that you'll just slide between meaning this or that depending on what you're rhetorical needs are at the time, and also clear that instead of actually responding to my argument you'll opt to employ this equivocation in some sideshow of recrimination, then, yes, I'll try to clarify.

Your long pasted article requires one to not only discern the philosopher's particular argument but where and where not I might agree.

You are saying in it HOW I ought to or am expected to respond. You put quite a few words in my mouth.

I admit, it was not an easy article. My first thought was God only promises that all things will work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

I am not sure that God is obligated by His nature to cause all things to work together for good to those who flat out remain in rebellion and revolt against His authority. That indeed may cause suffering which is a waste.

You have an assumption that you wish to saddle me with. That is that I believe God is obligated that the suffering of any type even of the perpetual and unrepentant rebel must be for good.

The "good" in the suffering of the unredeemable revolter against the Ultimate Governor is that he can never win and must be judged forever. It is good that justice is accomplished.

It is more good that salvation is extended and received by those who respond to God's calling. It is more good that all who do so must be conformed to the image of Christ so that they are in eternity, His brothers, His duplicates, collectively the mass production of the Firstborn Son of God.

Your argument, as much as I could understand with about two readings of it, was an old one. Why is not everything in heavenly paradisic well being right now ?

That is a argument. Maybe I cannot answer that. But I do know that a heavenly paradisic world in which righteousness alone reigns is where God is channeling history to arrive. I know that that is where He has things going. That apparently is the climax and the finale of the history of the universe.

No death, no tears, no suffering, glory, righteousness, and holiness for eternal ages. No, I agree that is not the condition NOW. But I see that that is where history will consummate.

And I have God's track record of the fulfillment of His promises to assure me that He will be faithful. He is able to accomplish that goal. And in a sense it is already accomplished for the prophets have actually seen it. They have transcended time and through the power of the eternal God, have seen where His will is consummated.

The track record, the resume He has left I cannot ignore. He says something will come about. He is able to do it.

The skeptic can say "But why are we not in Revelation 21 and 22 right now ?" That may be an argument tough to answer fully. But I can see Revelation 21 and 22 is definitely where history is HEADED.

Why was it not that way from the beginning ? Why was there any interruption or even a need for TIME and suffering ?

That may be an argument tough for me to fully answer. But eternal life and eternal blessing is where history is moving towards. God will bring those who respond to His call into that state.

It also stands to reason that there are some who want nothing to do with this God. For one reason or another they don't want a part in God's eternal purpose. It seems that He has a place for them too. But this is a place without His salvation, without His blessing, without His love and where justice reigns. By definition such a place is a hell.

That may be a suffering that has no other purpose but to insure the revolter is a loser. IF you insist to rebel against the Ultimate Government of all reality and being, you must lose. You cannot win. You have yourself.

Maybe the suffering there will act to so occupy them that they will not be much able to carry out their crimes upon each other forever.

Now these musings will have to be suspended for the sake of two little children who demand my attention.

I am not finished with your pasted argument yet. No hurry here. Skeptics have been trying to destroy the Gospel of Christ for about 2,000 plus years.

"The church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."

As for cursing as frequently with the name of Jesus as you wish or using it as you wish - I full well know that already. No need to brag to me about it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
as we have no absolute to draw from, it's very difficult to quantify moral character based on the subjective nature of morality. what it comes down to is opinion.

i think the chart is a very good idea since i have a similar [private] charts of 'acceptability' or chart of 'certainty' but in all of the charts, the top should be reserved for the 'concept ...[text shortened]... something i have personally experienced with my own senses and 0 for logical fallacies.

Yes, of course morality is subjective, but we each have our own scale of what a '100' would be. But I still have a problem with a scale of perfection that exceeds human capacity. We could, for example, pick the most morally perfect person in history (in our opinion) and say that that's what a perfect 20 or 100 looks like. I see nothing to be gained from placing the top rank in excess of what can possibly be achieved.

Originally posted by rwingett
As an aside, what's your opinion of John Rawls?

He's fantastic right up until Laws of Peoples (he had a stroke before that book, and much of it is confused). Also, he was apparently a saint among men.

Originally posted by bbarr
He's fantastic right up until Laws of Peoples (he had a stroke before that book, and much of it is confused). Also, he was apparently a saint among men.

Any introductory books on Rawls you'd care to recommend? It doesn't seem as though Amazon has a 'Rawls for Dummies.'

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay. And bbarr filled it out twice. Here is bbarr's second ranking which is more according to the actual LIFE LIVED rather than just teaching taught ( we might say ).





I have heard people curse saying ether Jesus Christ or saying someone somehow associated with Jesus Christ ( Mary perhaps).

But I don't know why it occurs to a person to grasp ...[text shortened]... /b] done to bbarr to invoke such a expression of contempt ? There is something wrong with us.

well, he scored jesus higher than i did on both of his charts. but i was also considering jesus's destiny rather than only how he lived.

Actually, Jesus taught what HE WAS. He just talked about Himself as He had lived for 30 plus some years. That is why it says that He taught not like religionists but as one having authority.

" And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astounded at His teaching, For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes." (Matthew 7:29) The crowds were "astounded" because He apparently was not living differently from what He taught. It is quite easy for a man to simply speak out of what he is in life.

yes, but i'm not impressed. it doesn't take much to astonish the masses, especially the kinds of masses who gather around alleged prophetic figures.

But here's what I would like you to think about. Though I have forgiven bbarr, he took the name of this MAN, whom bbarr admits on one grid lived a moral life superior to his own. And he used that name as a two part curse word.

so your contention with bbar is in what he allegedly said. i wasn't following the conversations so i don't know exactly what transpired between you two.

I forgive him. But think about that. Why would a man take the name of someone who he recognizes as better, morally superior, perhaps "holier", certainly cleaner, certainly more pure, at least to be a model, at least to be held in high regard ... and drag it down to the dirt to CURSE with that name ?

honestly, i don't know why anybody says anything. just look at what your bible has to say on the subject. what comes out of the mouth defiles the man and bbar never claimed to be morally perfect.

Bbarr wrote to me "Jesus Christ, jaywill .... thus and such, thus and such !!"

In his exasperation he was driven to pull the name of Jesus Christ down into the gutter and CURSE with that name, to make it seem vile, dirty, unworthy of respect -

perhaps he placed it where it belongs. but one doesn't need to curse with a name to do so.

I forgive him. I asked him not to do that. But can you see that something is wrong in us. If in anger we feel we have to pull such a righteous and even glorious name down to CURSE with it.

of course there is something wrong with us, we are human. but hold off on righteous and glorious. those are your conceptions of christ, they are not universal.

What drives men to do that ? Do you hear people CURSE with the name of Jesus Christ almost daily ?

on average, i don't hear the name of christ mentioned at all on a daily basis outside of this forum.

I never heard anyone curse with the name Buddha.
I never heard anyone curse with the name Mohammed.
I never heard anyone curse with the name Confucius.

maybe if you go places where these religions are more prolific, you might hear more curses in their names. though with mohammed, you're liable to get your head chopped off... and confusious was a dao scholar, not a religious leader.

I have heard people curse saying ether Jesus Christ or saying someone somehow associated with Jesus Christ ( Mary perhaps).

But I don't know why it occurs to a person to grasp at a name which he admitedly acknowledges as morally high[er] than oneself, and utter cursing with that name in frustration.

What had Jesus Christ done to bbarr to invoke such a expression of contempt ? There is something wrong with us.[/b]

from a psychological perspective, maybe he's just trying to get on your nerves. though like i said, i didn't follow along on the conversations and this is based on your description of events alone.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, of course morality is subjective, but we each have our own scale of what a '100' would be. But I still have a problem with a scale of perfection that exceeds human capacity. We could, for example, pick the most morally perfect person in history (in our opinion) and say that that's what a perfect 20 or 100 looks like. I see nothing to be gained from placing the top rank in excess of what can possibly be achieved.

exactly, that's why the top rank should be reserved for the conceptual ideal rather than an actual being.

so the people in society or history that appear to have impeccable moral sense would be placed at 19, and when a majority of the population have attained that same level, the scale of the chart will change and those who previously occupied the level of 19 will become the new average of 10.

Originally posted by jaywill
While I digest bbarr's article I would like to repose my questions. I don't see that anyone answered

I believe that in all human history no one I can think of surpasses [b]Jesus of Nazareth in displaying the qualifications to assess the level of "goodness" of God. Jesus seems to be the most qualified to be in a position to critique how good ...[text shortened]... udge and a few other of the more eloquent skeptics and Atheists on the board.[/b]

God the Father is a 20. Jesus the Christ the Person of the Son is a 20. God the Holy Spirit is a 20. Michael the Archangel is a 10? satan the devil is a 1

Originally posted by rwingett
Any introductory books on Rawls you'd care to recommend? It doesn't seem as though Amazon has a 'Rawls for Dummies.'

Just start with 'Justice as Fairness: A Restatement'. Great commentary can be found in 'Reading Rawls' edited by Norman Daniels. And, of course, you can message me on FB if you want to chat about it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Just start with 'Justice as Fairness: A Restatement'. Great commentary can be found in 'Reading Rawls' edited by Norman Daniels. And, of course, you can message me on FB if you want to chat about it.

I might look into 'Justice and Fairness.' 240 pages seems doable.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]

I appreciate your extensive thoughtful comments. This only reinforces my feeling that there is an unbridgeable gap between our understandings of the Bible, and I will therefore with all due respect refrain from further 'debate' on this topic with you. But I will continue to pay attention to your posts since they show a great deal of thought an that manifest in the Son Jesus in the New Testament.

That is not always easy to grasp.

I did not intend to denigrate your communication skills and apologize if I did. I am saying this: You said of the Bible, "I think it is telling it like it is, from God to man, an inspired book of revelation." My approach to it is to treat it as if it is none of that. I believe it tells some things like they aren't, it is from man to man, it is inspired by and revelatory of, human concerns only. In this light, where it says a god committed or commanded horrific acts like mass killings, I see these stories as rationalizations and justifications of semi-historical human actions. But if I want to learn more about the Christian understanding of the Bible, I count you as a good resource.

Originally posted by bbarr
Sometimes I get short-tempered, self-centered, or whatever. Sometimes I'm tired and don't think clearly about what would be best. Sometimes I take people for granted. You know how it is. I could always be better, and I have a pretty good sense of just how often I fail, and to what degree. I'm much better when I meditate every day, and when I have some time to myself. It's all just typical stuff.

If you ask me, we all pretty much know what the "good" thing is to do but struggle with doing it. It is all about the Golden Rule as Christ taught, which often wars with our sin nature to serve ourselves.

Interestingly, Christ would have given himself a zero on the morality scale. He stopped someone from calling him "good" with the retort that none is good save the Father. In other words, we were all born with an inner voice to steer us to do what is "good". It is nothing we can take credit for doing. However, when we do the "good" thing, we seem to want to be rewarded. Another view is that it is just expected to be a decent human being and, I think, is the view that Christ took as well.

Originally posted by whodey
If you ask me, we all pretty much know what the "good" thing is to do but struggle with doing it. It is all about the Golden Rule as Christ taught, which often wars with our sin nature to serve ourselves.

Interestingly, Christ would have given himself a zero on the morality scale. He stopped someone from calling him "good" with the retort that none is go ...[text shortened]... expected to be a decent human being and, I think, is the view that Christ took as well.

If you hold that our "sin nature" is to serve ourselves, then why do you defend private property? Isn't that the ultimate form of serving ourselves? The withholding of something from the WHOLE for our own self? Why do you ignore the passages from Acts which describe how the people "believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but that they had everything in common."

Originally posted by rwingett
If you hold that our "sin nature" is to serve ourselves, then why do you defend private property? Isn't that the ultimate form of serving ourselves? The withholding of something from the WHOLE for our own self? Why do you ignore the passages from Acts which describe how the people "believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but that they had everything in common."

So who is going to be the moral police Rwingett? Is it going to be politicians like Charles Rangel and Anthony Weiner or even Barney Frank? In fact, I wonder how much private property they all have combined. So spare me these moral midgets from preaching to Whodey.

Private propert is not the problem Rwingett, it is the condition of our hearts which uses that property for various things that is the culprit. In fact, you could take away everyones private property and if they have an evil heart will continue to be little bastards and society would not be noticably better for it.

Originally posted by rwingett
At the risk of arousing your wrath yet again, I am going to select this particular paragraph for scrutiny, for it is the critical failing of technological society (in my none-too-humble opinion).

Because, as you contend, any technology precedes the moral norms for its usage, technology will always shape the morality that follows in its wake. Instead of ...[text shortened]... would say naively) believe the former to be the case, whereas I maintain it will be the latter.

Heh, you have a seriously long way to go to hit wrath... mild irritation is about as far as you have got thus far.

The moral norms for the usage of a technology can be to not use it at all.
A good example of this actually is the nuclear bomb.
We developed the technology, discovered how bad it is when used, and haven't used it since.

I agree that it is a good idea to discuss the moral implications of technology before you use it, but its hard to
the point of impossibility to predict the moral implications of technology that hasn't been invented yet.

It is hard (I would say nigh on impossible) to argue that the advent of modern medicine with the level of improvement
it brings to everyone's (at least those living in the developed nations) lives, but nobody foresaw, or could have foreseen,
the advent of degenerative diseases that came with it, and thus the need for people to be able to chose their own time
and manner of death.

The fact that we can't foresee all, the moral implications of a technology or science doesn't mean we shouldn't invent or
discover things, it just means that changing circumstances means we have to change and adapt our moral codes to cope.
This is not a problem, as long as we do so in a reasoned, informed and inclusive manor.


Morality is a vitally important issue in science, I don't deny this, however the fact that new science and technology
challenges us to make decisions on how it should be used, isn't a problem, the only problem is if we make the wrong choice.
And that is not sciences problem, that's the collective responsibility of society at large.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, of course morality is subjective, but we each have our own scale of what a '100' would be. But I still have a problem with a scale of perfection that exceeds human capacity. We could, for example, pick the most morally perfect person in history (in our opinion) and say that that's what a perfect 20 or 100 looks like. I see nothing to be gained from placing the top rank in excess of what can possibly be achieved.

The problem is having a scale at all, while it is perfectly possible to rate actions as morally better
or worse than each other, unless you can define a perfect moral system and an absolute worst
moral system then there will always (at least potentially) be better or worse moral actions and
people than the 'best' you can find or the 'worst' you can find.

And this is even before you get to different but equal territory.

Also, even if you did have (and knew you had) a perfect moral code, then why would you expect
anyone to achieve perfect morality all the time, to never ever make a mistake or bad decision?

The fact that (in this hypothetical) you can define what a perfect moral system is, doesn't mean
that anyone would in practice live up to it at all times. However this doesn't make it worthless,
it is something to aspire to.
It is always better to (while still keeping your feet on the ground so to speak) aspire to something
beyond your reach than to settle for something readily attainable.
It's that drive that, over time, makes us better, both individually and collectively.