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

[michel]

Would the fact that dead people (according to Christianity) go to 'a better place' and then are free from pain? (Thus death is seen as a rebirth somewhere better?)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

If some wish to sanitize their God by ad hoc determinitions as to which Scipture is, or is not, authoritive, that is clearly their right. It does not, however, render my characterization of the YHWH of the Tanach any less accurate.

All statements, including this one, beyond "I think therefore I am" are faith statements.

Nonsense.

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.

The logic of this is to argue that the victims of 'natural' (read orchestrated) disaster brought it on themselves. We've had discussions here before on the willingness of some Christian apologist to blame the victim. It's an ugly excuse.

How is it possible to justify that killing is wrong, for example, if one cannot justify that harming another is wrong.

This is all just a bit hypocritical. If the orchestrated slaughter of thousands and the impoverishment of thousands more is not sociopathic, why the effort to mask YHWH's culpability? If 'good' and 'bad' mean no more that "what is good in the eyes of YHWH" and "what is bad in the eyes of YHWH", then where are the Judeo-Christian prayers praising YHWH for His glorious works?

How wonderous your destuction, YHWH. How glorious its death, disease, and despair. Like a majestic sunset is the blood splattered landscape. Like an Autum mist the pall of fear. Thank you, oh Lord, for bringing us these signs of your omnipotence - amen.​

Feel free to embrace all that YHWH creates - but do it openly and honestly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My belief of the 'Christian creation' is probably different from that of the avarage Christian.

The POE addresses YHWH of Scripture. There are many theologies wherein the POE is irrelevant.

 

[michel]

The POE address YHWH of Scripture. There are many theologies wherein the POE is irrelevant.

Sorry Deut "POE" means ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry Deut "POE" means ?

Sorry ... Problem Of Evil.

 

[cardero]

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

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

That may be the equivalent of professing that you believe in Microsoft Windows

but you do not believe in Bill Gates or the employees of Microsoft.

 

[cardero]

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

Could there exist a GOD who is omnipotent but doesn't behave or react like a human?

 

[michel]

Sorry ... Problem Of Evil.

O.K, thanks; If I understand correctly, you are referring to "The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable for anyone to believe in the existence of God." ?

The arguments for which I found on:-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

 

[michel]

Could there exist a GOD who is omnupotent but doesn't behave or react like a human?

Did you mean 'Omnipotent' ? - I though "oh oh, here's another word I don't know.........."

I truly believe that God is as you have defined above.

 

[Fluffy]

If some wish to sanitize their God by ad hoc determinitions as to which Scipture is, or is not, authoritive, that is clearly their right. It does not, however, render my characterization of the YHWH of the Tanach any less accurate.

Yes fair enough. I rescind the point.

Nonsense.

You are right it was nonsense, I do not know what I was thinking. Regardless, in the abscence of a refutation, I will have to hold to the idea that "god" and meaningful morality are inseperable concepts.

The logic of this is to argue that the victims of 'natural' (read orchestrated) disaster brought it on themselves. We've had discussions here before on the willingness of some Christian apologist to blame the victim. It's an ugly excuse.

I did not realise that you felt that natural disasters were an "inhumanity perpetrated in the name of religion". I do not feel that such events can comfortably be categorised as this and so when I say "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.", I am referring to things like the crusades etc.

Also what do you mean by the word "blame"? As in I am suggesting that victim's deserve what their punishment for whatever the reason or simply that they are the cause of their punishment, deserved or not.

This is all just a bit hypocritical. If the orchestrated slaughter of thousands and the impoverishment of thousands more is not sociopathic, why the effort to mask YHWH's culpability?

Because it is not an attempt to mask anything. "culpability" implies wrong doing or evil, not just identification of cause. I'm not trying to argue that scripture does not state that YHWH did not commit genocide or a wealth of things that most modern day human's view as immoral. I am merely arguing that 1) we have no basis on which to judge these things as immoral and 2) if we did, that basis would only work in the abscence of YHWH since their cannot be 2 causes of absolute morals which oppose each other.

Please remember that I never argued that these things were not sociopathic. Just that I do not believe that either you or me or anyone else is capable of equating sociopathic with wrong. Feel free to prove otherwise, however.

Feel free to embrace all that YHWH creates - but do it openly and honestly.

People who look at scripture, note that in their eyes God does terrible things and believe in those parts, generally do embrace such scripture, in my opinion. There are plenty of Christian hate groups out there which are excellent examples of this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Regardless, in the abscence of a refutation, I will have to hold to the idea that "god" and meaningful morality are inseperable concepts.

This is truly deserving of its own thread. Here, it is enough to observe that what we have here differs little from the the tired Christian ad hominem repeatedly raised against atheism. While YHWH, with his biocide and slaughter of the firstborn, his unceasing symphony of destruction, desperation, disease, and death, is somehow the standard for a 'meaningful' morality that is never clearly articulated, the morality of the Humanist, the Confucian, the Deist, and the Pantheist, etc. is blithely stamped "nonmeaningful". The implications are both sad and ugly, but that too is best reserved for another thread.

 

[Scott1]

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.

As you have a right to... but I have a problem when atheists do this with a limited understanding of, for instance, my faith... and then whine that "God is evil" without ever looking to understand our theology. If atheists spent as much time looking for positive aspects of God as they do looking for examples of "evil" then I might take them seriously... but for most... I view them in the same light as someone who tosses a wrench into the air, only to have it smack them in the head and proclaim "gravity is evil! @#@#$".

 

[JerryL]

As you have a right to... but I have a problem when atheists do this with a limited understanding of, for instance, my faith... and then whine that "God is evil" without ever looking to understand our theology.

So explain. What is "evil" and how is it identifiable?

 

[Scott1]

So explain. What is "evil" and how is it identifiable?

Hehe... good form Jerry...I'll play along.

Evil, in a nut-shell, is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law of God.

 

[JerryL]

Evil, in a nut-shell, is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law of God.

Are the laws universally applicable, or are they different from person to person, time to time?

Is an act inherently evli or only evil because God doesn't want you to do it?

 

[Scott1]

Are the laws universally applicable, or are they different from person to person, time to time?

The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen - the end in view or the intention - the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

"An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

 

[Fluffy]

This is truly deserving of its own thread. Here, it is enough to observe that what we have here differs little from the the tired Christian ad hominem repeatedly raised against atheism. While YHWH, with his biocide and slaughter of the firstborn, his unceasing symphony of destruction, desperation, disease, and death, is somehow the standard for a 'meaningful' morality that is never clearly articulated, the morality of the Humanist, the Confucian, the Deist, and the Pantheist, etc. is blithely stamped "nonmeaningful". The implications are both sad and ugly, but that too is best reserved for another thread.

It is meaningful by definition and nothing more nor less. But until another thread I suppose.

 

[JerryL]

The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen - the end in view or the intention - the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you asserting that acts / intents are never inherently "evil", or that some are and some are "sometimes evil"?

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

So "disorder of the will" is universally evil. What is "disorder of the will"?

"An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

So if infanticide were objectively evil, it would not be justified to kill infants to achieve some other good (such as killing sinners)?

 

[Scott1]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you asserting that acts / intents are never inherently "evil", or that some are and some are "sometimes evil"?

No, that is what "are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose" means.

So "disorder of the will" is universally evil. What is "disorder of the will"?

Humanity that is oriented away from God is disordered.

So if infanticide were objectively evil, it would not be justified to kill infants to achieve some other good (such as killing sinners)?

Correct.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As you have a right to... but I have a problem when atheists do this with a limited understanding of, for instance, my faith...

Respectfully, I am addressing the God of the Tanach as I understand it - not your faith or anybody elses faith. I grant that my understanding of the Tanach may be in error, but that is not for lack of honest effort. What does not require honest effort is pretending that the Problem of Evil is nothing more than the musing of hapless atheists.