The "Horrific God" Charge

Originally posted by josephw
Ever have a semi hurtling toward you on an icy freeway?

Sort of. I wasn't thinking happy thoughts.

Originally posted by sumydid
If God ends your existence in this dimension (or does so by proxy, not intervening in your "death" and allowing it to occur), and then you pass on to another dimension that is infinitely better; has God done something horrific?

The non-Christians continually (and many willfully) ignore the Christian precept that life on Earth isn't life as the World knows ...[text shortened]... must also accept that the "death" of this life is nothing but a passing to another place.

If dying mearly results in you being transported to heaven, with all the untold wonder and joy that is alleged to entail.
And god can justify killing anyone he likes because it mearly means their souls get moved on to a much better place.

Then so can anyone else.

If god can justify killing people as moral (or at least not amoral) because it just means they go to heaven then anyone
can justify killing someone on exactly the same grounds.

And if they are going to hell instead then god has deemed they deserve that and so that's fine too.

So killing people for, really any reason is perfectly fine because they simply go to heaven, or hell, whichever they 'deserve'.


So why did god create a commandment, one of the big ten, saying that you shouldn't kill (or murder whichever)?
If it's perfectly ok because they are just going to go on to a another, better, life, then why command people not to do it?

Or does god have double moral standards, and says do as I say not do as I do?


It is either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.

If it's wrong to kill people then the genocide god inflicted in the flood is wrong and he is amoral.

If it isn't wrong to kill people then why did god make a commandment against it, and claim it to be morally wrong?



Also, does it matter how people are killed? is it only ok if they don't suffer and experience pain and fear before they die?


This argument is one of the reasons why theism is dangerous. There is no evidence for god or an afterlife or souls.
And actually quite a bit of evidence against the existence of such things.
Yet people act like they are true, and untold suffering happens because it's easy not to worry about people dying and
suffering because "It's ok they will spend an eternity in heaven in the next life..."
It isn't ok, their is only one life, this one we should act like it, and make it as good, for everyone, as possible.
And if it turns out their is a life after this one, great we can enjoy that one too, safe in the knowledge that we didn't
waste this one by treating it like the waiting room or door mat of heaven.

And any god who wont admit people to it's shiny afterlife despite trying their utmost to make the world a great place to
live in for as many people as possible because they just didn't believe in him/her/it... then that god is not worth worshipping.


So yes. if god was real and caused the flood and genocide, then that is horrific.

However the god of the bible isn't real, and the flood didn't happen.

Originally posted by sumydid
If God ends your existence in this dimension (or does so by proxy, not intervening in your "death" and allowing it to occur), and then you pass on to another dimension that is infinitely better; has God done something horrific?

The non-Christians continually (and many willfully) ignore the Christian precept that life on Earth isn't life as the World knows must also accept that the "death" of this life is nothing but a passing to another place.

If God ends your existence in this dimension (or does so by proxy, not intervening in your "death" and allowing it to occur), and then you pass on to another dimension that is infinitely better; has God done something horrific?

Depends. It could be, sure. Take for example some neonate who has a very painful, lethal condition and nothing can be done by the relevant persons on earth (doctors, etc) to save her. So, suppose she suffers and withers away over many days and then dies. (This case has played out numerous times "in this dimension" by the way.) What could possibly justify God's non-intervention in this case? Yes, He would be horrific to stand by in this case. You say that the baby goes on to some "infinitely better" (whatever that means) dimension. So what? God could have transported her directly to the infinitely better dimension sans all the unnecessary suffering. Bottom line, can you give some plausible account of a greater good that obtains in such cases, in which the suffering of the neonate was logically necessary to bring it about?

Originally posted by rwingett
I am not the one who professes to be a Christian, Whodey. You are. But I think the Hutterites have it absolutely right. They are the "true" Christians, in my opinion. They are the ones who are living most closely to what Jesus had in mind.

Why do you so doggedly defend a capitalist system that both fosters and rewards greed? Indeed, a system that holds ...[text shortened]... rty and violence. You know, just like Jesus preached. It's hard to argue with their success.

Actually it's quite easy, you just ignore all the arguments.

The Hutterites were almost wiped out in Germany before they emigrated to the USA.

They can't survive without the all embracing protection of the USA to keep them safe.

And we can't all live like them because there is not enough space on this planet, it would
destroy the ecosystem in one fell swoop.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually it's quite easy, you just ignore all the arguments.

The Hutterites were almost wiped out in Germany before they emigrated to the USA.

They can't survive without the all embracing protection of the USA to keep them safe.

And we can't all live like them because there is not enough space on this planet, it would
destroy the ecosystem in one fell swoop.

There's nothing from stopping Whodey from living like a Hutterite, though.

A literal replication of Hutterite society would indeed wipe us all out, as they also believe in being fruitful and multiplying. Lord knows, the last thing we need is more bloody humans. If they could instead be persuaded to embrace a negative population growth while they go about converting the world, then things would be golden. Granted, if they truly had to live on their own, some things might have to change.

Since you're a man who likes to spin some free wheelin' science fiction yarns on occasion, let's examine the following scenario. Let's say the Earth's population was stabilized around 1 billion people, approximately what it was in 1800. Let's further say that the bulk of society lived in Hutterite communities, or some close approximation of Hutterite social situations (perhaps a little more secular, though). Now, let us say that they have agreed to maintain some specialized zones, away from the main settlements, where there are scientists busy doing their science.

The Hutterite(ish) people provide the scientists with their basic upkeep and consequently get to dictate what exactly it is that the scientists will do research upon. As there is no longer any market for improved weapons, that type of research is forbidden. As new research no longer delivers great financial profit to anyone, the entire motivation for doing research is altered. The possible pitfalls of any new research would be carefully considered, and research into technology that is likely to deliver more harm than good would be forbidden. Only technology that brings universal happiness and joy would be supported. By this mechanism, humanity would maintain its dominance over technology and not see it lapse into the opposite, as is the danger with unrestrained technological determinism.

Tah dah! I've solved all the world's problems in one fell swoop.

Originally posted by rwingett
Uh huh. And when you see that semi is hurtling toward you on an icy freeway, are you going to be thinking happy thoughts about going to another place? I don't think so.

I don't recall saying that human beings don't have survival instinct. This is where faith comes in. When we are faced with death, our faith is put to the ultimate test.

However, as the bible states (and this goes to googlefudge as well), it is not ever to us to decide when someone else's or our own lives should end. That is up to God. God commands everyone not to commit murder. Suicide is also murder.

Originally posted by sumydid
If God ends your existence in this dimension (or does so by proxy, not intervening in your "death" and allowing it to occur), and then you pass on to another dimension that is infinitely better; has God done something horrific?

The non-Christians continually (and many willfully) ignore the Christian precept that life on Earth isn't life as the World knows ...[text shortened]... must also accept that the "death" of this life is nothing but a passing to another place.

If a being can take me from my life in w1 to w2 in a flash, even if w2 is really sweet, how do I know what will happen next?

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't recall saying that human beings don't have survival instinct. This is where faith comes in. When we are faced with death, our faith is put to the ultimate test.

However, as the bible states (and this goes to googlefudge as well), it is not ever to us to decide when someone else's or our own lives should end. That is up to God. God commands everyone not to commit murder. Suicide is also murder.

Ah so god has double standards and morals don't apply to him.

And over simplistic morality like this is what is wrong with theistic morality.

If I see a guy standing over a family member raising an axe and about to strike and I am holding a rifle
(an unbelievably unlikely scenario, but never mind) then that guy is going to get shot, probably fatally.
Killing in Self defence, or defence of another is morally accepted by almost everyone.

Also, as I have said elsewhere there are a plethora of degenerative diseases that lead to long slow painful
excruciating deaths. Denying people the option to end their own lives at a time and manner of their choosing
is to condemn them to torture before they die.
The primitive people who wrote your holy book didn't live long enough for such diseases to manifest, and didn't
have life support machines to keep them going when their bodies had otherwise failed.

Originally posted by rwingett
Sort of. I wasn't thinking happy thoughts.

I never do. Well, maybe once in a while.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't recall saying that human beings don't have survival instinct. This is where faith comes in. When we are faced with death, our faith is put to the ultimate test.

However, as the bible states (and this goes to googlefudge as well), it is not ever to us to decide when someone else's or our own lives should end. That is up to God. God commands everyone not to commit murder. Suicide is also murder.

"When we are faced with death, our faith is put to the ultimate test."

No it isn't, if your going to die and know it, that isn't a test of your faith.

You (presumably) believe you are going to go to some nice shiny afterlife when you die,
and take some comfort from that as you draw your last few breaths.
That is not testing your faith, it's drawing comfort from it.

Testing your faith is coming across ideas that contradict or test your faith and exploring them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah so god has double standards and morals don't apply to him.

Sheesh, you can really suck the life out of a discussion, you know?

It's fallacious to demand that the Creator live by the rules set forth for His creation. If the Creator is omniscient as the bible claims, then the Creator knows all the implications for all time, when an action is taken. As His creations, we have no idea what the vast implications are way down the road when/if we decide to send someone into the afterlife.

God gave us a set of morals and standards based on our relatively puny knowledge of what is going on in our own lives, let alone our complete lack of knowledge as to what is really happening beyond this realm.

Have fun picking that apart but really, it's obvious you're just arguing for argument's sake. This surely isn't the first time you've argued the double-standard argument and surely isn't the first time you've been told that God in His omniscience has no reason to be bound by the rules He created for us to live by.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"When we are faced with death, our faith is put to the ultimate test."

No it isn't, if your going to die and know it, that isn't a test of your faith.[/b]

In the example given of a truck barreling down the road toward you, there was no indication that death was unavoidable. In any event you are wrong. Faith is put to the ultimate test when someone knows they are going to die, inasmuch as their mindset goes and how they proceed from that point. When a bona fide Christian is convinced they are going to die, part of them looks forward to it. Granted, they will also struggle with their faith and wonder if somehow they got it all wrong and this death is the end of all existence. That's the test of faith I'm talking about. Another test is when a Christian is told to renounce their faith or suffer the penalty of death.

Originally posted by gambit3
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

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

I agree that the Triune God should be ranked 20 or beyond.

Satan is a negative 20. He could only be the antithesis of all that God is. Satan could only set himself up to be the opposite of what God is in every way.

And his lie is to make man believe that he is god and that God is the evil one.
Many here have been duped by Satan's activity to have man switch the truth around in his mind.

They count God and Christ as the enemy. Much else is just shrouded in darkness.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If dying mearly results in you being transported to heaven, with all the untold wonder and joy that is alleged to entail.
And god can justify killing anyone he likes because it mearly means their souls get moved on to a much better place.

Then so can anyone else.

If god can justify killing people as moral (or at least not amoral) because it just m ...[text shortened]... fic.

However the god of the bible isn't real, and the flood didn't happen.

If dying mearly results in you being transported to heaven, with all the untold wonder and joy that is alleged to entail.
And god can justify killing anyone he likes because it mearly means their souls get moved on to a much better place.

It is a mistake for anyone, Christian or otherwise, to think of God's eternal salvation as merely going to a happy place.

Rather the salvation is a life transformation to be like Christ.

In other words to be "born again" is to grow "again" and mature "again" and develop "again" metabolically, into the same image as of the Christ, the Firstborn Son of God.

"conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers"

It is also a mistake to think it is normal to have to go into the realm of DEATH in order to meet God. Jesus said He was the God of the living.

Rather than thinking of dying to go to a happy place, as God's purpose, we should think more biblically. That is His eternal purpose is regeneration, sanctification, transformation and conformation to the image of the Firstborn Son. This involves resurrection in total rather than transporting disembodied spirits to a happy place in the state of death.

Originally posted by bbarr
So which premise of the argument do you deny?

So which premise of the argument do you deny?

I question that omnipotence has to mean that God can do what is in certain realms of really impossible, like create a round square.

I question that God is held accountable if some suffering does not end in the "good" to the unredeemable rebel who refuses to be reconciled to God.

The "good" is the good according to His estimation, His justice.

I think also that if a person admits the Christ's moral life surpasses his own that there could not be some things God could have done (not condemned by Christ) the rightness of which a man could not understand.

If one admits that Christ could be ranked above one own life then one has to admit Christ's appreciation of the righteousness of God might be beyond this inferior one's comprehension. At least it could be for a time until through his own salvation, he is conformed fully to be like Christ.

Then he would think like Christ and understand more someday what he finds "horrific" about God today.

I question that any Creator could impart what He does not have in Himself to give. How could the effect be greater than the cause ? How could God create a moral being which is more moral than Himself ? How could God equip this creation with something He does not have within Himself to furnish ?

That makes no sense that the effect could be greater than the cause.

And if God does not exist I see no real reason to believe in a absolute moral goodness. No moral law giver means no moral law. If no moral law then what difference does it really make what we do ? There is no accounting other than some illussion of self nobleness.

You know you will not answer ultimately for any wrong. You will only dissolve peacefully into the dust for there is no final Judge either a Rewarder or Punisher. Something in my sinful nature part says "That's cool. That's good that there is no final accounting. That is even noble that I answer only to myself. "

Problem is that we all are easy on ourselves and strict with the other guy. We are not equal. We commit in-equalness - iniquity.

Most are STRICT with the other person and SLACK on ourselves.

I question that a horrific God morally could create beings superior to Himself.

I question that if no Ultimate Governor exists that it makes any real difference whether we act horrifically or not.