Tim Robbins wrote: » Philogos said he thought there were intellectual difficulties with atheism in another thread. Could you elaborate? I am guessing you think atheism means you believe there is no God as opposed to disbelieving in any of the Gods put forward by various religions?
tommy2bad wrote: » Not answering for phil but trying to keep up. What? Ah so if atheism isn't believing in a God it's not believing in any god as described by the various religions with the option that they are wrong on the details?? Not sure I understand what you mean!
HHobo wrote: » You are ignoring the fact that God created us in accordance with his own whims. You don't go around murdering children. Presumably you aren't filled with the desire to murder and restrain yourself solely on moral and legal grouds. It is not in your nature to do it. God has created you with the desire to do X and he then impliments a prohibition against X. I would say he has some responsibility. It would be like you designing a sentient robot and instilling in it a strong desire to light things on fire. You then tell the robot not to do it. Do you think people would accept you saying "..but I told it not to do that" as removing all culpability on your part for designing it that way in the first place?
Genesis 3:9-13 wrote: But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”[d] 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
HHobo wrote: » Also. If I said to you. "You are free to eat those cakes over there if you like but I'd rather you didn't." ... "Oh and by the way, if you do eat those cakes I'm going to set you on fire". You would characterise this as freedom to choose? Imagine a court where a criminal is defending himself against a murder charge and his defence goes like this "I asked the victim to give me all their money. They chose not to. I only killed them because their choice displeased me. They were free to hand over their wallet. You can't blame me for their choices!"
HHobo wrote: » If you wish to claim that God is an exception to this idea and what he says goes because he is God; you are making a might makes right argument. You don't think that God need to have any moral justification for his rules and punishments. We are his toys and he can play with us in whatever fashion he chooses. It is hard to reconsile that with our being free agents.
HHobo wrote: » In Job's case the sin is nothing more than questioning God's motives. (Can you imagine a more despotic idea than being guilty of a crime for nothing more than question the motivations of the leadership) This sin is also commited only after God permits the heaping of miseries on him when he quite rightfully thought himself to be innocent of any crime. God is being a complete asshole here. He is insinuating that he has justifications that Job doesn't understand. Job is lead to believe that he must have done something wrong in order for God to be allowing his current misfortunes and that he simply can't comprehend the nature of it. Job is infact entrirely correct that he had done nothing wrong and his treatment was infact unjust. It was God's hubris and apparent failure of omnicience that led to Job's suffering. What Job doesn't know is that God motivations are self-aggrandising and petty. His "sin", in a perverse irony, is not believing that God must have a good reason.
HHobo wrote: » With Abraham, one of the worst things he does is almost stab Issac to death. I don't think God considers this a sin though. Apparently, to God, murdering your child (Abraham's intent) is fine if it is a demonstration of loyalty to him.
HHobo wrote: » There are modern moral philosophers who think scapegoating is ok? I really hope that isn't true
HHobo wrote: » What cost does God pay exactly? Are you claiming it is equal to eternal damnation? By what right does God forgive our sins against other people? If somone else punches you in the face, can I stroll up an forgive them for it. Surely it you, and only you, that has the power to forgive the offence? If the claim is that God is personally offended by your actions and it is this offence is forgiving, then he seem to only be interested in punishing sins against himself. Sins against others are not his concern beyond how they make him feel. Also, it is logically impossible to be fully just and merciful. I have often heard people claim that God is maximally just and maximally merciful. I don't think these are compatible. Justice requires that the evil be punished. Mercy requires that someone be excused their proper punishment. Finally, is it really mercy, if you inflict the punishment on someone else?
HHobo wrote: » This doesn't make a whole lot sense as we already have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all. The question stands. Also, if you do some harm to me and I wait until after I have punished to the full extent of the law and then forgive you, it is not really forgiveness, or at least a palty effort. Surely to be meaningful, forgiveness must be given
HHobo wrote: » Again, justice satisfied and mercy. You see the strangeness also in God essentially being a slave to his own requirement for Justice. He appears to lack the ability to forgo attaining this Justice. As much a slave to his nature are we, perhaps? He'd better hope he wasn't created that way by a more powerful being who is going to punish him for it
HHobo wrote: » This is an injustice then, something God is apparently not capable of.
HHobo wrote: » Only according to God's arbitrary rules.
HHobo wrote: » We deserve God's wrath; who decides we are so deserving? God does. Accuser, Judge, Jury and law maker. This has the Euthyphro dilemma written all over it. Essentially, are God's laws based on an intrinsic good (which means God is not the source of goodness), or are God's laws good because God decrees them (This means that if God decrees that murdering people for fun is good then it is good.)
HHobo wrote: » From himself. Quite bizarre.
HHobo wrote: » Guilty by decree. Sounds rather despotic. Saddam accuses you of being a traitor. The only person who can decide if you are guilty or innocent is Saddam. You are born guilty of sedition. Would you really be grateful for him shooting his own son in your place? Would he strike you as loving and just?
HHobo wrote: » A willingness to torture you for ever removes any possibility of this being true. It also junks any possibility of God being merciful.
HHobo wrote: » It wouldn't be saying that at all. If I forgive you for something without first smacking you areound a bit I am seemingly at fault. That is a really perverse view of forgiveness.
HHobo wrote: » Even if you can transfer the punishment for a sin, you cannot transfer the responsibility. The former is perverse and the latter nonsensical. Consider a murderer. He is found guilty and sentenced to death. His wife, to profess her love, chooses to take his punishment. She is killed in his stead and his debt is considered paid. The horrifying nature of this scenario aside, is he now not a murderer. Can his wife take on the moral guilt of the crime?
HHobo wrote: » This is a logical contradiction. The law of non-contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not-God at the same time. He can't be seperate from himself.
HHobo wrote: » You can't compress infinity into any arbitrarily long non-infinite period. That doesn't make sense.
HHobo wrote: » In what sense does Jesus "die". Can God die? (and simultaneously not be dead?)
HHobo wrote: » What was Paul onabout then? (assuming it was Paul. I can't remember for certain)
HHobo wrote: » Do you see nothing wrong with belief being the primary basis for salvation? Why is belief necessary? Would you agree that belief is not itself a moral matter? Apologies for the length of the post, there was a lot to unpack in there!
Cossax wrote: » I think he means the difference between gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.
Blinkus wrote: » Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this. A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals. The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket. The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you. If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years. Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly
philologos wrote: » I answered your question. Pinning the blame on God for what we decide to do as a result of Him giving us free will is daft. Its like saying if I crash my friends car into a ditch that He's responsible for it because He gave me the keys.
philologos wrote: » Free will is the reason why we can decide to do evil rather than good. Therefore the responsibility is with us. It's not that complex surely?
philologos wrote: » Accusing me of ignoring your question when I gave you sound reason as to why I think the logic is flawed also seems a bit silly.
philologos wrote: » The only reason I argue that God is just is because I have good reason to believe so. What the heck did you expect for me to join in calling God an "asshole" with you?
HHobo wrote: » You still aren't understanding the question. Let me try a different approach to explain how I think God cannot escape some degree of accountibility. Image if a group of nefarious scientists created a new species by manipulating DNA. They design this creature will an insatiable blood lust. It is part of this creatures nature. This creature is also sentient. When these creatures eventually go on a killing spree, by your logic, the creators of these creatures bear absolutely no responsibility at all as the creatures have free will. You would be calling the people who want to hold the scientists responsible as "daft" for not understanding that they can't be held accountable as the creatures could have chosen not to go on a killing spree. God could have created humans as free agents without the strong desires to commit what you are calling "sins". He chose to create us broken, essentially. Unless you wish to suggest that he was incapable of creating humans who are both have free will and a strong preference for being virtuous? When you create a thing, you are at least some way responsible for its actions are you not? If I raise a child, teaching him everyday to hate Jews. I talk endlessly about how noble and visionary Hitler was. I feed him a constant stream of negative stories of Jews and cultivate in him a deep hatred. I am entirely blameless if he grows up hating Jews? He has free will. He can decide not to hate? The responsibility is with him. It's not that complex surely?... well I think it is complex. God has done far worse than simply molding minds to prefer sin, he has buried these desires deep in our natures. If he had not, it would be a relatively trivial thing for at least some people to live completely sinless lives. Scripture practically delights in telling us how sinful we are and that none can possibly live up to God's standard. Do you still think you answered the question I asked? I don't agree with that. I think if a human acted as God has, you wouldn't even dream of defending their actions. You start from the position that God is good and you try to justify that position afterwards. Do you deny that it is axiomatic to you that God is good? I would expect you to call someone, or something, an asshole when they are acting like one and not make special exceptions for your favorite deity:) Do you honestly think God's treatment of Job was just from start to finish? He esentially had Job's entire family murdered on a bet :eek:
MrPudding wrote: » Good effort. A few of us have tried this line of questioning. Expect inadequate answers and complete dodging of the question. MrP
J C wrote: » Are you guys Atheists ... or simply anti-Theists? ... a lot of your line of questioning indicates that you know that God exists (so you're not an Atheist) ... it's just that you don't like Him (so you're an anti-Theist).
MrPudding wrote: » I would consider myself to be an agnostic-atheist who also happens to be anti-theist. I am sorry if it is beyond your level of comprehension, but sometimes people having a growed up conversation will allow an assumption for the purposes...........Please try to keep up. I know it's tough. MrP
Doc Farrell wrote: » Have a read of your own words here and show me how this isn't against the charter, never mind discourteous. These megathreads are tiresome because of posts like this.
J C wrote: » Are you guys Atheists ... or simply anti-Theists? ... a lot of your line of questioning indicates that you know that God exists (so you're not an Atheist)
J C wrote: » ... it's just that you don't like Him (so you're an anti-Theist)
philologos wrote: » You still don't understand if you're asking me that question. Belief is the only way possible to bring salvation. If we were judging by works, we've sinned and are guilty and are fully deserving of God's wrath. A just God, without Jesus as our substitute would have to visit the penalty of our sin on us instead. If we are guilty and if there is no other way that we can be unguilty, then we are condemned. There's no other way around it, other than Jesus. He came to rescue us as a free gift if we acknowledge Him and follow Him as Lord. It's not really much to ask to be honest. Is it?
philologos wrote: » Or do you expect to receive God's favour while rejecting Him, calling Him and asshole amongst other things?
Zombrex wrote: » But now you are saying well God isn't going to do that for the bad people, not for the people who call him an asshole. What?? He is going to save the murders, the rapists, the warmongers. But he objects to saving the people who call him an asshole? If I do that I'm undeserving of salvation? But when I was murdering and raping and launching nuclear weapons I was still deserving of salvation? The basis of Christian salvation is that God loves us despite what we have done. So why do we have to believe *cough* because Jesus was a cult leader who wanted people to worship him *cough*
J C wrote: » but He wiill not force His love on us
Zombrex wrote: » Paul's instructions to Christian slaves, encouraging them to "wholeheartly" submit to their masters and that doing so is the will of God (entirely consistent with the Old Testament where God regulates the practice of slavery)Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Ephesians 6:5-9 wrote: Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
philologos wrote: » The Ephesians 6 model does not encourage oppressive masters. It encourages masters to treat their slaves with respect, as Christ has treated them. This is why I think that the New Testament doesn't encourage anything of the kind of colonial slavery.
Zombrex wrote: » So in your mind slavery is ok so long as the slaves submit to their masters and the masters do not threaten their slaves? "Slavery" as in treating certain people as having reduced civil rights and personal authority who are bought and sold among free peoples as a form of personal property and held in bondage? Because Paul certainly thinks it is ok, as does God apparently.
Zombrex wrote: » Why? What is the bad thing that happens if he "forces his love on us" (ie decides not to make us suffer for all eternity in a lake of fire). Its like saying I'm not going to force you to accept my loving offer of not shooting you in the face with a shotgun :rolleyes:
philologos wrote: » I think you're missing the point. If masters served their slaves, as Christ has served humanity as verse 9 and also the beginning of this section in verse 21 where it says that Christians should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ before looking to the relationship between husbands and wives (5:22-33), children and parents (6:1-3), and slaves and masters (6:5-9) there wouldn't be these issues, unless one is to seriously suggest that serving ones slaves as Christ their master would would lead to reduced civil rights?
Zombrex wrote: » I think slavery leads to reduced civil rights, because that is what slavery is. What in your post are you referring to by "these issues"? You think the only thing wrong with slavery is when masters threaten or abuse their slaves? You realize that slavery itself is a form of abuse, right? That not allowing someone self determination is in of itself a violation of civil rights? Or are you saying that if everyone did as Paul says we would actually end up with no slavery at all? Because that ain't what Paul is saying.
HHobo wrote: » Image if a group of nefarious scientists created a new species by manipulating DNA. They design this creature will an insatiable blood lust. It is part of this creatures nature. This creature is also sentient. When these creatures eventually go on a killing spree, by your logic, the creators of these creatures bear absolutely no responsibility at all as the creatures have free will. You would be calling the people who want to hold the scientists responsible as "daft" for not understanding that they can't be held accountable as the creatures could have chosen not to go on a killing spree.
HHobo wrote: » God could have created humans as free agents without the strong desires to commit what you are calling "sins". He chose to create us broken, essentially. Unless you wish to suggest that he was incapable of creating humans who are both have free will and a strong preference for being virtuous?
HHobo wrote: » When you create a thing, you are at least some way responsible for its actions are you not?
HHobo wrote: » If I raise a child, teaching him everyday to hate Jews. I talk endlessly about how noble and visionary Hitler was. I feed him a constant stream of negative stories of Jews and cultivate in him a deep hatred. I am entirely blameless if he grows up hating Jews? He has free will. He can decide not to hate? The responsibility is with him. It's not that complex surely?... well I think it is complex. God has done far worse than simply molding minds to prefer sin, he has buried these desires deep in our natures. If he had not, it would be a relatively trivial thing for at least some people to live completely sinless lives. Scripture practically delights in telling us how sinful we are and that none can possibly live up to God's standard.
HHobo wrote: » Do you still think you answered the question I asked?
HHobo wrote: » I don't agree with that. I think if a human acted as God has, you wouldn't even dream of defending their actions. You start from the position that God is good and you try to justify that position afterwards. Do you deny that it is axiomatic to you that God is good?
HHobo wrote: » I would expect you to call someone, or something, an asshole when they are acting like one and not make special exceptions for your favorite deity:)
HHobo wrote: » Do you honestly think God's treatment of Job was just from start to finish? He esentially had Job's entire family murdered on a bet :eek:
J C wrote: » Its like saying that you have the freedom to accept God ... ... and you have the freedom to reject Him.
philologos wrote: » The reason you posted it I presume you think that Paul's idea is objectionable. I'm asking in what way is it objectionable.
philologos wrote: » If Paul is advocating for masters who are Christians to consider how their master in heaven has treated them, in treating their slaves, this precludes an abusive situation between a master and slave.
philologos wrote: » What's the problem with what Paul has noted from verses 5 - 9? He's encouraging for masters to treat their slaves as Christ has treated them. Unless you're claiming that Christ encourages abuse I can't see what problem arises.
philologos wrote: » Moreover, how is this ignoring Paul as you've claimed I have?
Zombrex wrote: » You want me to explain why slavery is objectionable?
Zombrex wrote: » This is why I was so reluctant to actually do this Phil, I knew you would stall for time by just posting nonsense and hoping I would give up and go away.
Ephesians 6:9 wrote: Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
Zombrex wrote: » Slavery is an abusive situation between a master and slave.
Zombrex wrote: » And he is encouraging slaves to submit to their masters. He is encouraging slaves to put up with slavery. He is encouraging slavery.
Zombrex wrote: » Do you think slavery is moral? Not abusive slavery (what ever the heck you think that is). Just slavery, is it immoral? I just want to hear you say you don't think slavery is immoral.
philologos wrote: » No, I expect you to read what you've quoted honestly without ignoring it.
philologos wrote: » I'm not stalling anything, I'm reading the passage. You intentionally ignored verse 9 for some reason.
philologos wrote: » I think it's wholly good. Paul is advocating that masters treat their slaves with the respect that they deserve.
philologos wrote: » What's fascinating is "do the same to them". Namely from verse 7 - 8, that they should render service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does they will receive back from the Lord.
philologos wrote: » You claim that I ignore it, when I look to this very passage when I seek to serve my boss at work.
philologos wrote: » I'm asking you very simply what's wrong with the text in and of itself apart from applying extra-Biblical anachronisms that can't be found in the text to it?
philologos wrote: » What Paul is describing precludes abuse if you just read the passage.
philologos wrote: » How could a master who was trying to serve God in how they treated their slaves encourage abuse?
philologos wrote: » He's saying that if you are a slave, you should submit to your master as to the Lord. Correct.
philologos wrote: » I think what Paul is encouraging is entirely good, and entirely just.
philologos wrote: » If you actually read the passage rather than faffing around with anachronisms you might actually see this too. Paul is describing a slave / master relationship, and how it should work in a Christian context.
philologos wrote: » You claim that I post nonsense about the passage when I'm the one who is paying attention to it. Get a grip!
