Old Testament GOD - an evil, homicidal, mass murderer?
Crime is declining.
i have numerous objections to such a statement.
[...] I pointed out how the former is dependent upon the mother, but the latter, while dependent, is not dependent upon the mother as they can be raised by father/family/adoption/etc. This led Doggg to make a serious of ridiculous claims such as "as nobody really wants somebody else's one month old" and the like that launch many challenges. And hence the new conversation was born. It is kind of like this thread adopted it, which perhaps explains why it is such a trainwreck
a) We gain access to technology whereby an aborted fetus can be carried to term outside the womb. Would you now consider abortion without doing this to be equal to infanticide?
b) A mother has a newborn baby, but no possible way of having it adopted. Would this lessen the gravity of infanticide?
Even I don't like dumb or obvious paradoxes, like: Can god make a stone so heavy he cannot lift? Or can he make a square circle, etc.? But I don't think this is as problematic (nor silly) of a paradox. Either god has the power to pardon, or he does not. Most Christian teachings state that you can be a homicidal child molester and if you accept Jesus Christ on your death bed, you'll be saved. If this is the case, then certainly god can save anyone from hell, no? Oh, and by the way... If god is perfect in the sense you state and completely without sin, then how is it that he is even able to create sinners?
The other thing is that if God were to simply forgive everyone, there would be no reason for earth. Just create us in heaven in the first place. Part of the point is that God wants to have community with us, but won't force us to, hence the free will to accept or reject him. Anything else contradicts the nature of love.
Not sure how you're arriving at this conclusion. Again no offense, but it seems as though you make stuff up in order to fit your points. How do you know separation from god is torture? Have you ever been separated from god? Do you know someone who has? Are you saying that I am not now separated from god? And if I was, I would be in a tortured state?
Im sure you have biblical support for this idea ? although I doubt it would convince me. Punishment is a purely human idea. Im sure god, if there is one, has no concept of punishment, and no need for it. I guess rather than punishment, you could think of it as culling, or throwing away the rubbish, or pulling out the weeds, if you are of the "hell is destruction" rather than "eternity burning in fire" persuasion.
Punishment only makes sense when there is some code or morality in which you can diverge from to deserve the discipline. I'm not one to argue that morality can't exist without God, (I enjoy the evolutionary arguments for morality) but where God exists morality and punishment are a given, but this is not so without God, where it needs to be established. I'm sure you've heard WLC debate this.
Biblically, your analogy of throwing away the rubbish and pulling out the weeds is apt. It's one of the metaphors found in the bible. Separating the good from the bad as it were.
Basically said, isn't it like 'perfection' is living as He does and sinning is living other than in His ways? So if God were to have his reasons to kill (in a scenario which would be straight sinning for any human being with His perfection as we know it today) we'd rather have to adjust our definitions of perfection and sinning than stating He'd be sinning in the first place, as He is the one sets those terms, right? If you meant 'everything he does != sin, so therefor He's 'unable to sin'' to begin with, never mind me.
As for God having reasons to kill, I think that much is an obvious truth and exception, but I don't press that point too much on here, because it ends the conversation rather quickly, and it does seem to beg the question a little. I do agree that God is exempt, but I think there are other ways to discuss it than simply saying God does not sin when he does X, because he is God, even though I agree with it.
Punishment only makes sense when there is some code or morality in which you can diverge from to deserve the discipline. I'm not one to argue that morality can't exist without God, (I enjoy the evolutionary arguments for morality) but where God exists morality and punishment are a given, but this is not so without God, where it needs to be established. I'm sure you've heard WLC debate this.
If you allow me to be the devil's advocate regarding your statement, how would you respond to these two hypotheticals:
a) We gain access to technology whereby an aborted fetus can be carried to term outside the womb. Would you now consider abortion without doing this to be equal to infanticide?
b) A mother has a newborn baby, but no possible way of having it adopted. Would this lessen the gravity of infanticide?
a) We gain access to technology whereby an aborted fetus can be carried to term outside the womb. Would you now consider abortion without doing this to be equal to infanticide?
b) A mother has a newborn baby, but no possible way of having it adopted. Would this lessen the gravity of infanticide?
The longer answer is that I don't view abortion (or most/all issues?) as having firm absolute answers. I think it is pretty arbitrary in the sense that societies make agreements on accepted morality but I don't know what I can say more meaningfully than that. Note I don't mean to say I am a moral relativist, more like a moral nonabsolutist and/or a moral noncognitivist or something.
So on abortion, I think that physical/economic realities inform the types of decisions that societies accept. The difference between dependency upon the mother and dependency on somebody is a critical difference between fetuses and babies. Hopefully Doggg's skimming of my posts won't get this far, but I don't view infanticide as wrong in the sense that it violates some deontological rule, it is just that there are different factors to consider like the ability of the society at large to raise infants in a way that society at large can't raise fetuses without the mother being involved.
Returning to your questions, you are in effect asking "if the physical/economic realities of abortion changed, would your view change?". To which I say "very possibly!". I think both your a and b are such meaningful changes. I don't know if it makes it exactly equal, but it would certainly create a pressure in those respective directions. One might still make economic arguments such as "if we saved every fetus, there would be consequences like overpopulation" or whatever. So it might not be exactly equal, the technologies might have various economic consequences. But in general, yes those different factors would seem to be relevant to any discussion.
even if you accept a code or morality, punishment still doesnt necessarily make sense. You could, for example, see that everyone is doing their best( even if their best does not measure up to the code), and so punishment, as in "you have done something wrong, and so must suffer undesirable consequences" just doesnt make sense. Your idea of punishment is predicated on the idea that there are individuals, who could have made a different choice, and must suffer pain as a result of not making the choice. It seems a bizarre, outlandish, and vindictive idea to me.
What I have been arguing is that this is the only way it could be, based on who God is and what the bible says about him. If it was any other way, God would not be just (based on the given definitions and concepts).
You don't have to like it, there are many things about the punishment that I don't necessarily understand or agree with given my human understanding, but I think it makes sense in a logical way.
The short answer is yes to both.
The longer answer is that I don't view abortion (or most/all issues?) as having firm absolute answers. I think it is pretty arbitrary in the sense that societies make agreements on accepted morality but I don't know what I can say more meaningfully than that. Note I don't mean to say I am a moral relativist, more like a moral nonabsolutist and/or a moral noncognitivist or something.
So on abortion, I think that physical/economic realities inform the types of decisions that societies accept. The difference between dependency upon the mother and dependency on somebody is a critical difference between fetuses and babies. Hopefully Doggg's skimming of my posts won't get this far, but I don't view infanticide as wrong in the sense that it violates some deontological rule, it is just that there are different factors to consider like the ability of the society at large to raise infants in a way that society at large can't raise fetuses without the mother being involved.
Returning to your questions, you are in effect asking "if the physical/economic realities of abortion changed, would your view change?". To which I say "very possibly!". I think both your a and b are such meaningful changes. I don't know if it makes it exactly equal, but it would certainly create a pressure in those respective directions. One might still make economic arguments such as "if we saved every fetus, there would be consequences like overpopulation" or whatever. So it might not be exactly equal, the technologies might have various economic consequences. But in general, yes those different factors would seem to be relevant to any discussion.
The longer answer is that I don't view abortion (or most/all issues?) as having firm absolute answers. I think it is pretty arbitrary in the sense that societies make agreements on accepted morality but I don't know what I can say more meaningfully than that. Note I don't mean to say I am a moral relativist, more like a moral nonabsolutist and/or a moral noncognitivist or something.
So on abortion, I think that physical/economic realities inform the types of decisions that societies accept. The difference between dependency upon the mother and dependency on somebody is a critical difference between fetuses and babies. Hopefully Doggg's skimming of my posts won't get this far, but I don't view infanticide as wrong in the sense that it violates some deontological rule, it is just that there are different factors to consider like the ability of the society at large to raise infants in a way that society at large can't raise fetuses without the mother being involved.
Returning to your questions, you are in effect asking "if the physical/economic realities of abortion changed, would your view change?". To which I say "very possibly!". I think both your a and b are such meaningful changes. I don't know if it makes it exactly equal, but it would certainly create a pressure in those respective directions. One might still make economic arguments such as "if we saved every fetus, there would be consequences like overpopulation" or whatever. So it might not be exactly equal, the technologies might have various economic consequences. But in general, yes those different factors would seem to be relevant to any discussion.
Isn't the pro-choice argument more about not actually giving birth to the child, and therefore aborting it, not about *when* they give birth?
If it was simply a matter of delivering the fetus earlier than 9 months, say 6 months, and having it survive with the aid of new technology, why not just wait 9 months and have it survive without any aids, since this technology does not exist as of yet? Presumably the conclusion of both scenarios is adoption, so what is the difference whether it happens at 6 months or 9 months? Isn't that missing the point of why an abortion is wanted in the first place?
If it was simply a matter of delivering the fetus earlier than 9 months, say 6 months, and having it survive with the aid of new technology, why not just wait 9 months and have it survive without any aids, since this technology does not exist as of yet? Presumably the conclusion of both scenarios is adoption, so what is the difference whether it happens at 6 months or 9 months? Isn't that missing the point of why an abortion is wanted in the first place?
Perhaps, I was under the impression this was by far the most common. I can't imagine someone aborting a baby because they don't want the hassle of adopting it, but I guess not wanting people to know is pretty high on the list.
Other reason include adherence to views like "if my child exists, I want to be able to raise it. But I don't want to raise it, ergo I don't want my child to exist". The idea that your child is out there, and you aren't able or willing to care for it, can be deeply uncomfortable. There are many such emotional reasons why people may prefer to have an abortion. Still others may just not consider it an issue that one has to come up with strong emotional reasons against, abortion is just a form of birth control like any other and should deserve no more attention than putting a condom on.
This isn't really "my" idea, I'm just relaying what the bible says. Atonement and the forgiveness of sins through Christ, or the punishment for your sins, is the central theme and foundation of the bible.
You don't have to like it, there are many things about the punishment that I don't necessarily understand or agree with given my human understanding, but I think it makes sense in a logical way.
You don't have to like it, there are many things about the punishment that I don't necessarily understand or agree with given my human understanding, but I think it makes sense in a logical way.
What I have been arguing is that this is the only way it could be, based on who God is and what the bible says about him. If it was any other way, God would not be just (based on the given definitions and concepts).
All this stuff about god cant abide sin just seems made up fluff to me.
You seem very tied to the idea of punishment. Maybe its just because thats what the bible says, but you seem to need the idea of payment for wrongdoing, you almost seem to like the idea, and think that its justified and logical. Justified possibly( although I dont agree that it is) but logical, no. You dont get an ought from an is, in logic.
Like I said earlier to Lestat, if you believe this is all a fairy tale, then of course it's "made up", you have no reason to believe that God requires atonement. That is very different than you pointing to a logical inconsistency within the text itself, whether real or fiction.
What is it about God needing justice to be met that you find so unacceptable, logically speaking? If you are distressed by it in terms of human suffering, I'm there with you, most people are, but aside from that, I'm not seeing a problem.
"people do bad things , therefore they deserve punishment" is not a logical conclusion. You cant derive an ought from an is
because it seems fairly obvious that its humans that need justice to be met, not god.
For some people, the idea that within this story is a display of perfect justice is incomprehensible. A blood sacrifice, that isn't a sacrifice at all, is demanded for excusing human behaviour? And more importantly, the faith (to continue the uncharitable description, one might better say gullibility) of the masses is the real measure for what happens to them.
Sorry for the interruption! Also, regarding your "if you think it's just a story" comment, I don't mind saying that a lot of the atheists on RGT do think it is just a story, obviously, but are in general more interested in why those that believe it to be true (such as yourself) do so.
I can't prove that justice comes from God, but only that biblically, it's necessary. There is no formula I can give you to prove justice needs to be met, but I don't think any formula will suffice to prove any of these things.
You've probably heard seemingly uncharitable descriptions of the gospel, perhaps similar to: God came to Earth in human form, lived a sinless life, and was ultimately sacrificed by other humans (despite the fact that God cannot be killed, and demonstrated this by returning to life 3 days later), this 'not-really-sacrifice' ultimately being made by Himself, to Himself, for the laws He made Himself. In so doing, this 'not-really-sacrifice' paid the penalty for all of humankind's sin. But that's another 'not-really', a 'not-really-paid-penalty'. The only thing that turns out to matter is that each person must believe the story to be true, otherwise the 'not-really-sacrifice' does not count for anything. If you fail to believe the story, you will be kept alive and tortured for eternity, rather than being allowed to die and disappear from existence. Oh, and all of this was foreseen to happen.
For some people, the idea that within this story is a display of perfect justice is incomprehensible. A blood sacrifice, that isn't a sacrifice at all, is demanded for excusing human behaviour? And more importantly, the faith (to continue the uncharitable description, one might better say gullibility) of the masses is the real measure for what happens to them.
For some people, the idea that within this story is a display of perfect justice is incomprehensible. A blood sacrifice, that isn't a sacrifice at all, is demanded for excusing human behaviour? And more importantly, the faith (to continue the uncharitable description, one might better say gullibility) of the masses is the real measure for what happens to them.
One thing I will correct you on is that Christ says that he himself lays down his life out of his own accord, for those who believe in him, that they may be forgiven. No one takes it from him.
One other thing is that God didn't necessarily "make" these rules. They are dictated by his character in order for God to be Godly. It's the reason that many call the Euthyphro dilemma a false dichotomy.
Sorry for the interruption! Also, regarding your "if you think it's just a story" comment, I don't mind saying that a lot of the atheists on RGT do think it is just a story, obviously, but are in general more interested in why those that believe it to be true (such as yourself) do so.
Like I said earlier to Lestat, if you believe this is all a fairy tale, then of course it's "made up", you have no reason to believe that God requires atonement.
I'm on my way out, I'll answer you when I have more time.
One quick comment though, why is the plausibility of all of this somehow attached to your moral interpretation and acceptance of it? There is a bit of argument by outrage in your last comments, and while I understand your outrage, I think it clouds your conclusion that it's necessarily false.
One quick comment though, why is the plausibility of all of this somehow attached to your moral interpretation and acceptance of it? There is a bit of argument by outrage in your last comments, and while I understand your outrage, I think it clouds your conclusion that it's necessarily false.
You can grab any belief system and make it seem absurd. I won't attempt it, but you could make the big bang and theory of evolution up to the present time also seem silly. It is silly, everything is, the fact that there is anything is difficult to interpret with perfect logic and understanding.
I would be interested to see you do the same to evolution. I would guess you couldnt do it without misunderstanding the concept, and intentionally introducing errors and false ideas. I guess you would accuse Beaucoupfish of the same in his characterisation of the jesus story, can you point out where he is inaccurate?
One other thing is that God didn't necessarily "make" these rules. They are dictated by his character in order for God to be Godly. It's the reason that many call the Euthyphro dilemma a false dichotomy.
I'm on my way out, I'll answer you when I have more time.
One quick comment though, why is the plausibility of all of this somehow attached to your moral interpretation and acceptance of it? There is a bit of argument by outrage in your last comments, and while I understand your outrage, I think it clouds your conclusion that it's necessarily false.
One quick comment though, why is the plausibility of all of this somehow attached to your moral interpretation and acceptance of it? There is a bit of argument by outrage in your last comments, and while I understand your outrage, I think it clouds your conclusion that it's necessarily false.
The main point I'm trying to make is that your own morality is far superior to that of the god you believe in. You wouldn't kill thousands of innocent babies under any circumstances. You wouldn't exact similar punishment on your own kids no matter what their crime was. Yet, you'll go to any lengths to make excuses for why it's different for god. So yes, it frustrates and outrages me, because I honestly don't understand how an intelligent person who stops and thinks about this objectively, doesn't immediately see the silliness of what they're trying to pass off as a loving god.
A side question: Where do you think your morals come from? God? The bible? You? I'm curious. I think you can guess my answer.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE