14 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayActually I think He most certainly does treat other beings with respect and
Actually I think He most certainly does treat other beings with respect and
honor, far more than we deserve. As a race you see how we behave, you see
the way we harm others in all manner of action, you see how we allow others
to be harmed, and so on. To the smallest amount of pain and suffering to the
more harmful we are guilty of it all, we justify our ...[text shortened]... not because we were owed by God anything, but due to
His mercy, grace, and love for us.
Kelly
honor, far more than we deserve. As a race you see how we behave, you see
the way we harm others in all manner of action, you see how we allow others
to be harmed, and so on. To the smallest amount of pain and suffering to the
more harmful we are guilty of it all, we justify ourselves by looking at ourselves,
we make the claim we are not as bad as (pick a name) and feel like we are
okay, or good enough. With each thought we have where we do to others as
we will, to those actions we take we have no justification before God on our
own.
Wow. You enjoy your ritualized self-loathing, do you? This is like the wife who gets beaten by her husband and then tries to rationalize that she is somehow at fault for it. I bet you think those who fell to genocide enacted at the hands of your God were just asking for it!
You must be a glass-half-empty sort of guy with all this self-loathing and guilt talk. When I look at our race, I see a lot of good things, too.
But, regardless, I still do not understand how this all demonstrates anything at all. I may as well just look at your God and say "you see how He behaves, you see
the way He harms others in all manner of action, you see how He allows others
to be harmed, and so on." Face it: the god described in the bible is no better than this dark side of humanity that disgusts you.
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, that's a crappy argument.
God created us and appointed for us a time to be born and to die. So if that
is the way of it, why would God ending a life be thought of as bad since all
life will end in the creation as it is currently setup?
Kelly
Compare to:
God created us and appointed for us a time to be born and to die. So if that
is the way of it, why would Jeffrey Dahmer's ending a life be thought of as bad since all life will end in the creation as it is currently setup?
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I think death is one of the most natural things in the world. But, all things considered (though there are exceptions), I think it's better for people to live long and healthy lives, than have their lives violently and gruesomely cut short. Further, I think that if it is in our power to prevent the violent deaths of children, we're morally obligated to do so. And here's the thing, Kelly, you also think this! If God doesn't have moral obligations, then just say so! If you think human beings can be morally judged, but God cannot, then just say so! But please, please, don't then go on to say that God is good, or just, or loving, or, above all, morally perfect. Because if you do say those things, you're speaking nonsense; literally, you're not using those terms in accord with what they mean.
So since everyone dies no matter what, and they can at any age, you think that
death is something unnatural to reality? If those children had lived to 80 would
they have been any less dead? Is there some claim you can make that requires
God to give you another day of life? Is there any of us that can hold God to
do that? If there isn't than why do you t ...[text shortened]... all should be
very happy to avoid some of the things we can be held accountable for.
Kelly
14 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarr
I’m not sure why you begin with speaking of rebellious people. But, look, the horrific evils I pointed out in the original post, including the murder of children, have little to do with rebellion in any clear sense. The children weren’t unrepentant rebels. So it’s really strange that you’d think my event E refers to the punishment of rebellious people. Loo ...[text shortened]... ieve that. I'm just not constructed that way, which is why I'm a philosopher by training.
I’m not sure why you begin with speaking of rebellious people.
Romans 8:28 draws a line there - all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose. These are those submitting to the will of God.
But, look, the horrific evils I pointed out in the original post, including the murder of children, have little to do with rebellion in any clear sense. The children weren’t unrepentant rebels.
Okay. But there are a couple of possibities here. Some Canaanite societies may have so dedicated their offspring to the darkest occult forces that demonic enfluences might possess them due to the darkest pacts made by their parents to the Devil.
It is possible that the killing of those children God chose to their starting off in life somewhat consecrated to demon "gods" and powerful occult forces.
I do not know that for certain. But it is possible. Some of ther animals also may have been dedicated to the darkest, most evil occult enfluences.
Something I do notice though. There must be some unknowns concerning some slain peoples in the Old Testament because Jesus warned that in the final judgment it would be MORE tolerable for those people than for the latter who rejected the testimony of the Son of God:
"But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:24)
Apparently the suffering of some judged harshly, in the Old Testament, will put them in a less culpable position in the end, compared to others who spurned the Son of God most directly.
Temporal judgment upon those children is not the whole story. We do not know that eternal blessing in the resurrection will not be to many of them. Greater good out of harsh judgment in this life.
Am I relevant to your point ?
So it’s really strange that you’d think my event E refers to the punishment of rebellious people.
I was speaking of the case of rebellious people because you said ANY ... ANY event E. You opened the door for me to select the rebellious unredeemed as an example to work with.
Look at the examples I gave! Are you denying that those events were evils?
I may not be following you. But I thought "any event E" allows me to propose my own examples.
The article is really long and involved. Maybe I am not following it well.
I would bounce back to it right now to check if I could.
But I will have to stop writing and look at it again latter.
Are you denying that the murders of these children were unnecessary? Perhaps their parents were, or perhaps Adam and Eve were rebels; I’m sure you can find some rebels somewhere.
We all were. Some believed into Christ.
Some refused to do so.
But if God either kills or allows children to be murdered because of something those children did not do, then it is horrific.
On one level yes. On another level maybe not.
How could Jesus say "But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you" UNLESS something more fortunate in the end befalls these judged as, ie. children, yet somehow found less culpable at the last judgment ?
Same idea occurs with societies judged in the Old Testament compared to the more modern peoples who rejected God's Son more directly -
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
But I say to you, It will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the hday of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:21,22)
" And you Capernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which tool place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today." (v.23)
In some things we do not have the transcendent viewpoint of the God over all time and eternity. What is true of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom may be true for some Canaanite cities too in which some children died by the edge of the sword.
I do not know that in the eternal scheme their lot of goodness will be blessed in comparison to adults who lived to a ripe old age and kept their BACKS to the Savior Jesus.
Abraham in Genesis 18 really gave an argument about the problem of evil to God. And Job did also. At least it is not as if an eloquent voice to the problem of evil did not get its "equal time" to be expressed in this Bible.
I guess I come up like Abraham - " Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteouss should be as the wicked. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly ?" (Gen. 18:25)
The idea of a God creating a moral creature SUPERIOR to Himself is not logical to me. How could He give to His creation that which He has not in Himself to furnish ?
And if Athiesm is true - good and bad, horrific and wonderful are really just a matter of taste - like prefering chocolate icecream over vanilla.
Or else they are just the result of combinations of material matter - a good molecule working in the brain or a evil atom activated in the grey matter. Both of which will dissolve peacefully into the meaningless dust in the coldness of space.
It makes no real difference. No final Arbitrator will call to account evil or good.
That’s a clear case where the word ‘horrific’ applies. It’s also a clear case where the term ‘unjust’ applies,
To know the unjust we would have to have the transcendent view from a standpoint that only God has.
We don't know the whole story or the whole outcome in all cases. Ie. Sidon, Tyre, Sodom.
given that collective punishment of the innocent is unjust.
God is able to accomplish more than one thing at a time. It may appear to us that He is only handling ONE thing. He may be handling multiple things, even beyond our ability to know.
A hurricane may serve ONE purpose to punish someones and simultaneously serve ANOTHER purpose to be a blessing to someone.
The power of His maintaining the creation hints at His power to multiprocess.
The death at the sword of a child in a Canaanite city God could be all WE see. And it serves one purpose to warn and horrify us that OUR reaction to God can touch something of the destiny of our children. We may need to see that and shudder.
From a more transcendent viewpoint God could be multiprocessing and be in the act of securing greater blessing on that human being in the long run.
I am at the point that I realize that the rock bottom worst thing that could happen under this sun was the execution of the Son of God on His cross. And God turned that out to marvelous salvation for billions.
The killing of a Canaanite child is bad. It is not as bad as the condemning to death of Jesus. In a sense for Peter to take up a sword and DEFEND Jesus to the death was the most noble thing for a human being to do on one level. Why not defend from death the Savior King such as a Jesus Christ.
I regard His crucifixion as the ultimate misfortune turned by God into the greatest positive blessing.
I have to go now.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillThere is a common claim that morals must be imposed from an external judge and arbiter (typically god/s)
And if Athiesm is true - good and bad, horrific and wonderful are really just a matter of taste - like prefering chocolate icecream over vanilla.
Or else they are just the result of combinations of material matter - a good molecule working in the brain or a evil atom activated in the grey matter. Both of which will dissolve peacefully into the meanin ...[text shortened]... pace.
It makes no real difference. No final Arbitrator will call to account evil or good.
and that it can't be generated internally within society, or that even if it can, god's morality is better.
You (and everyone else here interested in the subject) really really need to watch Matt Dillahunty's
"Superiority of Secular Morality" Lecture on secular morality.
It deals in detail with why it's not only possible to create a secular moral system but that is indisputably
better than non-secular morality regardless of whether a deity exists or not.
The lecture itself is just under 50 minutes long and is followed by about 30 mins of questions.
The video/audio quality isn't great but it is watchable. It deals with all the issues you are discussing.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html
Also this video on the how science can inform morality, and create a moral system.
&feature=channel_video_title
I have posted them before (and probably will again), because you, and others, keep making points that are
refuted, and explained in these videos in great detail, and more so and in a more convenient format than is
practically possible on these forums.
You may well disagree with what is said here, but at least we would then be starting the debate from a common
reference point.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywill
I’m not sure why you begin with speaking of rebellious people.
[b] Romans 8:28 draws a line there - all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose. These are those submitting to the will of God.
[quote]
But, look, the horrific evils I pointed out in the original post, includ ...[text shortened]... turned by God into the greatest positive blessing.
I have to go now.[/b]
A hurricane may serve ONE purpose to punish someones and simultaneously serve ANOTHER purpose to be a blessing to someone.
So is it fair to say that God can perform an act that has a horrific effect on some while having a benevolent effect on others?
Is there also an implication in this statement, that the negative effect a natural event has on people is always deserved by them?
Just asking.
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by JS357Of course not. You know that is a stupid question. Just saying.A hurricane may serve ONE purpose to punish someones and simultaneously serve ANOTHER purpose to be a blessing to someone.
So is it fair to say that God can perform an act that has a horrific effect on some while having a benevolent effect on others?
Is there also an implication in this statement, that the negative effect a natural event has on people is always deserved by them?
Just asking.
15 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]I know where I fall short and I admit I do, now if you feel like you don't and
[b]Actually I think He most certainly does treat other beings with respect and
honor, far more than we deserve. As a race you see how we behave, you see
the way we harm others in all manner of action, you see how we allow others
to be harmed, and so on. To the smallest amount of pain and suffering to the
more harmful we are guilty of it all, we justif the god described in the bible is no better than this dark side of humanity that disgusts you.
have no need to be forgiven for anything in your life that is saying something
about you too. It isn't a matter of self loathing, it is admittting I've come up
short from what I believe I should have done or not done with my life.
I see a lot of good too, but does not void the bad or evil in the world either that
has been and is being done by us.
Evil as real as it is, gets this life time to work its way out and its done, and by
done I mean done forever. It is simply a bump in the road, but the sad part is
that many will be lost due to the embrace of it and the rejection of the one way
to be forgiven.
Kelly
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloJeffery Dahmer didn't create this universe and set in motion all that is.
Well, that's a crappy argument.
Compare to:
[b]God created us and appointed for us a time to be born and to die. So if that
is the way of it, why would Jeffrey Dahmer's ending a life be thought of as bad since all life will end in the creation as it is currently setup?[/b]
Again, you compare God to a human so you can condemn God.
Kelly
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo
But did I summarize your argument for that conclusion correctly?
I believe everything God has done and is doing is done both correct and just,
and I believe it is true not just because God did it, but because on its face it is
just and I believe you too will some day admit that as well.
Kelly
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarrI've said God acts toward us with moral obligations, but that has more to do
No, I think death is one of the most natural things in the world. But, all things considered (though there are exceptions), I think it's better for people to live long and healthy lives, than have their lives violently and gruesomely cut short. Further, I think that if it is in our power to prevent the violent deaths of children, we're morally obligated to d ...[text shortened]... speaking nonsense; literally, you're not using those terms in accord with what they mean.
with God's nature than our deserving it. I think we will indeed look at
everything God has done from the beginning to judgment day, we will judge
all that has been done. We are after all witnesses to the world's events, it is
just that now we don't see things clearly.
I think you are trying to hold God to human standards and that doesn't work
since God isn't a human and is something much more.
Kelly
15 Nov 11
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, I'm not trying to hold God to human standards. I'm holding God to basic moral standards; standards of decency and compassion and love. I don't see any reason why these standards do not apply to both paupers and princes, humans and Gods. Maybe I just take this morality stuff way more seriously than Christians. It wouldn't surprise me. Maybe I think it's way more authoritative than you do, because I think it applies to every person, God included. But if you think that we can't apply moral notions to God, because he is "so much more" than human, then you're going to have to admit that that cuts both ways. If it is inappropriate for me to apply the concept 'horrific' to God, then it is just as inappropriate for you to apply the concept 'loving' to God. You don't get to pick and choose which moral predicates apply.
I've said God acts toward us with moral obligations, but that has more to do
with God's nature than our deserving it. I think we will indeed look at
everything God has done from the beginning to judgment day, we will judge
all that has been done. We are after all witnesses to the world's events, it is
just that now we don't see things clearly.
I thin ...[text shortened]... tandards and that doesn't work
since God isn't a human and is something much more.
Kelly
In any case, you've claimed that because God is the creator, he may do with his creation as he wants. But that isn't right, and you know it. Suppose, hypothetically, I create a computer that is so complex it can feel pain, just like we can. Suppose I can cause this computer pain by pressing a button. If I spend my day pressing this button, isn't there something wrong with that? Isn't there something wrong with causing a sentient creature pain, even if you've created that creature? This just seems clear to me.
15 Nov 11
1 edit
Lest we forget, the Humanist--by definition--will always insist that sensory experiences in our relatively fleeting visit to this dimension, mean more than anything else. On the other hand, the Theist should not allow him/herself to be trapped by this argument.
It's like a fetus complaining to an adult about the cramped confines of the womb; what can the adult say to the fetus to convince it that there is more to life than the tight quarters it squirms and struggles within.
15 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidSo you're ready to discuss your notion of the soul, then? Excellent! I figured that you had just decided to permanently duck my questions. But here you are!
Lest we forget, the Humanist--by definition--will always insist that sensory experiences in our relatively fleeting visit to this dimension, mean more than anything else. On the other hand, the Theist should not allow him/herself to be trapped by this argument.
It's like a fetus complaining to an adult about the cramped confines of the womb; what can the ...[text shortened]... convince it that there is more to life than the tight quarters it squirms and struggles within.
Here is the first question: If you and I were to switch souls (suppose God plays a game of musical souls with us), mine into your body and yours into mine. Would either of us notice the difference? If so, then by virtue of what introspectively accessible features of our psychology would we notice?