The 'cruel God' belief.........

[michel]

Half way through an existing thread, I became aware that what I was saying might have been taken as being extremely 'uncaring', and as an indication that I accept a facet of God which can be seen as cruel by those who do not believe in a God.

I wonder if this is one point no one has yet thought to broach......(though I doubt it)

I have seen Deut's and others' posts often describing God as a cruel deity (allowing horrendous miseries to befall his 'Children'), and I suddenly realize where and how our perspectives are so far out of Sync that we are virtually speaking different languages.

I'll give a 'for instance':-

Katrina disaster; Why (the atheist asks ) did God not step in to save those from the South Gulf coast from dying, because of the storm ? - when, from that perspective, he could have 'saved' all those who died ?

From the God believer's point of view, death is nothing more than the blink of an eye; true, it could be exeedingly painful - But I am no stranger to extreme pain.

Would it surprize you to learn that I, as a Christian, cannot wait for the time of my death to come? - to be freed from this world, in which, because I am human, I will no doubt sin, each and every day that I live. Of course I would choose death - why not ? - to be near those I have loved, and who have died (I miss them every day - and yet, if I was dead I would be reuinited with them); I would be free from pain, worries, and best of all, I would be in what must be 'The garden of Eden'.

Does that make sense, to the disbelievers of the existance of a God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Katrina disaster; Why (the atheist asks ) did God not step in to save those from the South Gulf coast from dying, because of the storm ? - when, from that perspective, he could have 'saved' all those who died ?

But michel, I for one view that as a derivative question. If one believes in an omniscient and omnipotent God, one is suggesting that he designed and engineered a set of processes fully knowing and fully intending each and every consequence of those processes. As I've noted before, with reference to an omniscient and omnipotent God, there can be no distinction between saying that YHWH allowed 'X' and saying that YHWH orchestrated 'X'.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)​

At issue is not YHWHs failure to intervene in the aftermath of Katrina. The problem is YHWH's premeditated culpability in every aspect of Katrina.

 

[Cynic]

Half way through an existing thread, I became aware that what I was saying might have been taken as being extremely 'uncaring', and as an indication that I accept a facet of God which can be seen as cruel by those who do not believe in a God.

I wonder if this is one point no one has yet thought to broach......(though I doubt it)

I have seen Deut's and others' posts often describing God as a cruel deity (allowing horrendous miseries to befall his 'Children'), and I suddenly realize where and how our perspectives are so far out of Sync that we are virtually speaking different languages.

I'll give a 'for instance':-

Katrina disaster; Why (the atheist asks ) did God not step in to save those from the South Gulf coast from dying, because of the storm ? - when, from that perspective, he could have 'saved' all those who died ?

From the God believer's point of view, death is nothing more than the blink of an eye; true, it could be exeedingly painful - But I am no stranger to extreme pain.

Would it surprize you to learn that I, as a Christian, cannot wait for the time of my death to come? - to be freed from this world, in which, because I am human, I will no doubt sin, each and every day that I live. Of course I would choose death - why not ? - to be near those I have loved, and who have died (I miss them every day - and yet, if I was dead I would be reuinited with them); I would be free from pain, worries, and best of all, I would be in what must be 'The garden of Eden'.

Does that make sense, to the disbelievers of the existance of a God?

At some point, I do not see how there could be some higher purpose underlying suffering, that is when it becomes excessive such as your case Michel. I just don't see how it would be necassary. For me, a god who intentionally allows suffering, sends people to hell where they will be tormented for eternity, or orders genocide, seems like a cruel, sadistic god.
Why would you create something intentionally, so that it will suffer in hell for an eternity? What would be the purpose in that?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would it surprize you to learn that I, as a Christian, cannot wait for the time of my death to come? - to be freed from this world, ...

That is too easy to say and way too myopic. Perhaps death would be a comfort for you, but YHWH is not limited to doling out comforting death. What if you lost everything? If you saw one child die a terrifying death and couldn't find another? If you could no longer communicate with your wife because she is too weak from hunger and disease? If you've given up looking for the food and family that are nowhere to be found? If your entire social context are in wretched decay and despair?

The Problem of Evil cannot be swept away by anecdotal and easy claims of comfort. There is no sane parent on the planet who would knowingly impose on a child what is claimed, explicitly or implicitly, of YHWH.

 

[Fluffy]

At some point, I do not see how there could be some higher purpose underlying suffering, that is when it becomes excessive such as your case Michel. I just don't see how it would be necassary, in referance to what it would accomplish in the long run. For me, a god who intentionally allows suffering, sends people to hell where they will be tormented for eternity, or orders genocide, seems like a cruel, sadistic god.
Why would you create something intentionally, so that it will suffer for an eternity? What would be the purpose in that?

When I was younger, I could not see any reason why planes stayed in the air. They are heavier than me, they don't flap their wings like birds and when I run very fast in one direction, I don't take off. However, it is obvious that they do fly so I cannot come to the logical conclusion that their flying is an impossibility even though I was unable to comprehend it.

In other words, just because one cannot comprehend reason, purpose or design does not mean that it isn't there, or even simply staring us in the face.

Besides, in order to condemn a god as "cruel and sadistic", one must first accept his existence within the confines of the argument. Therefore, one must use his own moral structure to judge him, if one is so inclined, since all other morals become unjustifiable.

The Problem of Evil cannot be swept away by anecdotal and easy claims of comfort. There is no sane parent on the planet who would knowingly impose on a child what is claimed, explicitly or implicitly, of YHWH.

The Problem of Evil is circular in nature and proves nothing. God and meaningful morality are inseperable concepts so using one to disprove the other doesn't work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Besides, in order to condemn a god as "cruel and sadistic", one must first accept his existence ...

True. The atheist is not condemning God as anything, since we see nothing warranting belief in its existence. What we are doing is characterizing the God constructed by the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God and meaningful morality are inseperable concepts so using one to disprove the other doesn't work.

That is a faith statement, and a sociopathic one at that since it serves as the theological justification for every inhumanity ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

 

[michel]

I think we may be at odds in what you believe I believe. Maybe I am not a typical Christian...........

My belief of the 'Christian creation' is probably different from that of the avarage Christian. The only part of Creation that I believe God 'had a hand in' was to produce the necessary conditions for abiogenesis to occur; from there, evolution took over. I do not believe that the old testament is accurate; I do not believe that it gives a true perspective of God.

I accept the new testament God of Love and I do not accept the context of Hell (except in defining hell as the absence of God).

I also have to 'admit' that my faith in God is based on emotion and choice rather than on any evidence (before anyone comes back with a 'prove it line' ; I know as well as you do that I cannot). I am still trying to 'define' my faith - don't forget - and I think it important to stress the 'Faith' rather than call it 'Religion.'

 

[JerryL]

Here's a question to see if you could answer. What act would God have to do in order to convince you he was cruel (assuming he was)?

 

[Cynic]

When I was younger, I could not see any reason why planes stayed in the air. They are heavier than me, they don't flap their wings like birds and when I run very fast in one direction, I don't take off. However, it is obvious that they do fly so I cannot come to the logical conclusion that their flying is an impossibility even though I was unable to comprehend it.

In other words, just because one cannot comprehend reason, purpose or design does not mean that it isn't there, or even simply staring us in the face.

But in other words, there may be a reason, purpose, and design which god intended for Ted Bundy to sexually torturing a woman with a bed post.

There may be a reason, purpose, and design which god intended for a women's fetus to be stolen while she was unconscious.

There may be a reason, purpose, and design which god intended for the Oklahoma City bombing.

You used the miscomprehension of the functionality of an airplane as an arguement. however, the reason, purpose, and design for an airplane is explicit and can be proven, wherease the reason, purpose, and design god intended for a hurricane, or perhaps Ted Bundy's murders, can neither be proven or disproven. I find it illogical.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The "cruel God" debate can be avoided entirely if one drops the assumption that gods must be omnipotent or have conscious minds/morals.

 

[michel]

The "cruel God" debate can be avoided entirely if one drops the assumption that gods must be omnipotent or have conscious minds/morals.

Could there exist a God who is neither omnipotent nor have a conscious mind/Morals ?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Could there exist a God who is neither omnipotent nor have a conscious mind/Morals ?

That's what I believe, only I call it "Nature".

"I do believe in God, only I call it Nature." ~Frank Lloyd Wright

 

[michel]

That's what I believe, only I call it "Nature".

"I do believe in God, only I call it Nature." ~Frank Lloyd Wright

Oh, now, don't do that to me! - That was the way I thought before turning to Christianity:biglaugh:

 

[Cynic]

Besides, in order to condemn a god as "cruel and sadistic", one must first accept his existence within the confines of the argument. Therefore, one must use his own moral structure to judge him, if one is so inclined, since all other morals become unjustifiable.

Ok. Thou shalt not kill.

God committed massive genocide because David disobeyed Him.

#1, this contradicts God's own commandment.

 

[michel]

Ok. Thou shalt not kill.

God committed massive genocide because David disobeyed Him.

#1, this contradicts God's own commandment.

I understand the point you are making, and i have no answer for it without spending time, researching.

Have you considered though, that by the same account, the creation of mankind built in the death of every man that lives ?

 

[Cynic]

Ok. Thou shalt not kill.

God committed massive genocide because David disobeyed Him.

#1, this contradicts God's own commandment.

#2, I'm just curious to see if you can come up with any hypothetical reason, purpose, or design that justifies murdering those who were not responsible for David's transgression.

 

[JerryL]

Is "to win a bet with Lucifer" a good justifiaction for the torture of Job and the murder of his friends and famliy?

 

[Cynic]

Is "to win a bet with Lucifer" a good justifiaction for the torture of Job and the murder of his friends and famliy?

Hmmm. Well, if that is what God calls a good justification. Would you consider it cruel if you were part of the collateral damage, over some bet with satan?

 

[Fluffy]

True. The atheist is not condemning God as anything, since we see nothing warranting belief in its existence. What we are doing is characterizing the God constructed by the Abrahamic religions.

I disagree. You are attempting to characterise the God of Abrahamic religions based on scripture which is not held as authoritative by all of their followers.

That is a faith statement, and a sociopathic one at that since it serves as the theological justification for every inhumanity ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

All statements, including this one, beyond "I think therefore I am" are faith statements. However, I can lend a reasonable amount of justification to the statement that you dismiss as such.

Firstly, the sociopathic nature of a statement has no bearing on the validity of it. I pose that the consequences of the justification, which you outline above, are caused by faults with humanity and not with the logic of the statement.

Secondly, I argue that, without an outside authority (such an authority could be a god or it could be something else) to back it up, moral statements are effectively reduced to relativity. How is it possible to justify that killing is wrong, for example, if one cannot justify that harming another is wrong.

In fact the best that relative morality can come up with is the Golden Rule, and its derivatives, but this still falls prey to people's swaying opinions. For example, if I am willing to die then the Golden Rule cannot be used to justify the immorality of murder in this case since I am following the rule to the letter. This is all, of course, irrelevant, however, since the Golden Rule still fails to answer the question "why is doing other than this, immoral?"

Therefore, since relative morality cannot make meaningful assertions about why something is right or wrong, it becomes meaningless itself at least as far as debating whether God is cruel or not is concerned. This is because it rests on circular logic. For example, if you believe that genocide is wrong, and therefore God is immoral for having commited genocide, how do you respond to the belief that God is the producer of absolute morality and therefore his actions cannot be immoral? How can your relative morality stand up to a being whom, by definition, defines morality through his very existence?

But in other words, there may be a reason, purpose, and design which god intended for Ted Bundy to sexually torturing a woman with a bed post.

There may be a reason, purpose, and design which god intended for a women's fetus to be stolen while she was unconscious.

There may be a reason, purpose, and design which god intended for the Oklahoma City bombing.

I did not say any of those things. However, unless you can bring up a reason why they shouldn't be or even a reason why it is incrementally likely that they shouldn't have, given the existence of God, I see no reason to jump to a conclusion.

You used the miscomprehension of the functionality of an airplane as an arguement. however, the reason, purpose, and design for an airplane is explicit and can be proven, wherease the reason, purpose, and design god intended for a hurricane, or perhaps Ted Bundy's murders, can neither be proven or disproven. I find it illogical.

Okay fair enough I withdraw the comparison. I've never been good at doing that kind of thing anyway so its just setting myself up for a fall .

The "cruel God" debate can be avoided entirely if one drops the assumption that gods must be omnipotent or have conscious minds/morals.

I find that the belief that God is the cause of absolute morality a sufficient belief, and one which many Christians and Jews already hold, to avoid the 'cruel God' debate.

Ok. Thou shalt not kill.

God committed massive genocide because David disobeyed Him.

God never said it was wrong to kill. He said "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Assumedly this is sufficient justification to follow his commandments. Christians are not required to refrain from killing because it is wrong but simply because God told them not to do it.