The value of life?

[Just_me_Mike]

Are you saying God needs to reproduce? If so, it wouldn't be a struggle for him like it is for us. He could instantly and effortlessly create as many perfect children as he likes.



Do you not see the disgusting immorality of that statement? What if humans held that same view? Let's allow everyone but our own family to be tortured and raped and stricken with disease and hunger and on and on...



If only spanking and time out were the worst forms of suffering in the world. We view those acts as morally OK because they're relatively harmless. Would you starve your child to death or allow him to be beaten and raped to death? Why not? God allows such wicked acts to happen to his children.



So "oh, they're in heaven now" makes up for all of the horrendous, pointless suffering? I wouldn't want to spend eternity with such an evil god.



Absolutely disgusting. That is the line of thinking that leads to suicide bombings.



It's fascinating that such an evil, primitive, fictional character is still being worshipped in the 21st century.

You know I am a BIG fan of Carlin, (the real one), though I find your personality charming. As you can see I am trying to drag out the root of the problem so it is without any doubt understandable for all to see. I think together you and I have done that.
To you, and maybe me and millions of others, if there is a God, or at least the one in the bible, he seems more like a devil than a God from what has been written about in this thread.
Part of my problem with your response is you are responding from emotion and not rationale.
To sum it up, your main point is pointless killing is evil.
It isn't so bad if God allowed Hitler to die, but it isn't OK that he allowed 6 million people to die at Hitler's hand.
I think this falls into an area of what is each person's moral fabric.
I mean Hitler was not created in a Vaccum. He hated what jews were doing to his country. I don't agree with what he did at ALL, but he wasn't doing it for no reason. I do not see this as God allowing it to happen, but God allowing the error of man and sin to unfold.

 

[CarlinKnew]

To you, and maybe me and millions of others, if there is a God, or at least the one in the bible, he seems more like a devil than a God from what has been written about in this thread.

One only needs to look as far as the Bible to recognize how evil the main character (God) is.

Part of my problem with your response is you are responding from emotion and not rationale.

My responses may be barbed, but they're certainly rational. If you disagree, then kindly point out any irrational points I've made.

It isn't so bad if God allowed Hitler to die, but it isn't OK that he allowed 6 million people to die at Hitler's hand.
I think this falls into an area of what is each person's moral fabric.
I mean Hitler was not created in a Vaccum. He hated what jews were doing to his country. I don't agree with what he did at ALL, but he wasn't doing it for no reason. I do not see this as God allowing it to happen, but God allowing the error of man and sin to unfold.

Why does God allow the error of man and sin to unfold? Why did he create a system in which these horrible acts can happen? God could've created the world any way he liked; apparently he enjoys watching us suffer.

 

[Tristesse]

You know I am a BIG fan of Carlin, (the real one), though I find your personality charming. As you can see I am trying to drag out the root of the problem so it is without any doubt understandable for all to see. I think together you and I have done that.
To you, and maybe me and millions of others, if there is a God, or at least the one in the bible, he seems more like a devil than a God from what has been written about in this thread.
Part of my problem with your response is you are responding from emotion and not rationale.
To sum it up, your main point is pointless killing is evil.
It isn't so bad if God allowed Hitler to die, but it isn't OK that he allowed 6 million people to die at Hitler's hand.
I think this falls into an area of what is each person's moral fabric.
I mean Hitler was not created in a Vaccum. He hated what jews were doing to his country. I don't agree with what he did at ALL, but he wasn't doing it for no reason. I do not see this as God allowing it to happen, but God allowing the error of man and sin to unfold.

Or, god doesn't exist. And thing in life just happen. like the holocaust, and the only ones to blame are the nazi's and Hitler.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

One only needs to look as far as the Bible to recognize how evil the main character (God) is.



My responses may be barbed, but they're certainly rational. If you disagree, then kindly point out any irrational points I've made.



Why does God allow the error of man and sin to unfold? Why did he create a system in which these horrible acts can happen? God could've created the world any way he liked; apparently he enjoys watching us suffer.

Unfortunately you equate "God enjoys watching us suffer" with how you would feel seeing that situation. Hence we are now back to the beginning of the thread. I don't see anyone raising much cane about running over a skunk. That is what I think is irrational. Some basic reasons why we might value human suffering over skunk suffering is what we have been taught to believe. Just as MANY tell me, you only believe what you believe because you have been taught that. I would submit the same to you.

That was the point of the thread. You may not like the fact, God may be watching us suffer, but who are you to call that an act of evil when you can do the same thing for other life forms? You can try to rationalize it all you want, but it will only be subjective to whatever makes you moral fabric up.

Can you not agee with this? Or are you a person who can never be wrong? I admit I am wrong all the time, and as such it prompted me to make this thread, because I believe in a God, that I have plenty of questions about.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Unfortunately you equate "God enjoys watching us suffer" with how you would feel seeing that situation.

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand what you mean.

I don't see anyone raising much cane about running over a skunk.

That is what I think is irrational. Some basic reasons why we might value human suffering over skunk suffering is what we have been taught to believe. Just as MANY tell me, you only believe what you believe because you have been taught that. I would submit the same to you.

That was the point of the thread. You may not like the fact, God may be watching us suffer, but who are you to call that an act of evil when you can do the same thing for other life forms? You can try to rationalize it all you want, but it will only be subjective to whatever makes you moral fabric up.

Can you not agee with this? Or are you a person who can never be wrong? I admit I am wrong all the time, and as such it prompted me to make this thread, because I believe in a God, that I have plenty of questions about.

If I had the power to prevent the suffering of all skunks (or any other living thing), I would. I wouldn't create a world with suffering. Don't you see the difference? We are merely humans, we're not all-powerful like your god. God could EFFORTLESSLY create a world in which nothing suffered.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand what you mean.



If I had the power to prevent the suffering of all skunks (or any other living thing), I would. I wouldn't create a world with suffering. Don't you see the difference? We are merely humans, we're not all-powerful like your god. God could EFFORTLESSLY create a world in which nothing suffered.

The part you asked me to rephrase:
In other words we can look up and say God must enjoy watching suffering because he is allowing it to happen. I am saying we can only equate our own personal views upon this situation. As such I pointed out the skunk stuff. We watch that happen without feeling aguish, so why can he not watch this without feeling anguish.

You say if you had power of God you would make a world without suffering. I am glad you feel that way, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
You do have power to change how you interact with life around you, don't you? And you do have control with how you feel about life being terminated no matter what the life form. So your only argument can be that we as humans are just different, than the idea of a God. Because with God it HAS to be enjoyment if he wathces suffering, but with humans it is just business as usual.

that argument doesn't stand very well. So lets try to keep unravelling it.

thanks...

 

[CarlinKnew]

The part you asked me to rephrase:
In other words we can look up and say God must enjoy watching suffering because he is allowing it to happen. I am saying we can only equate our own personal views upon this situation. As such I pointed out the skunk stuff. We watch that happen without feeling aguish, so why can he not watch this without feeling anguish.

I do feel it weighing on my conscience when I accidentally run over a skunk, and I would certainly avoid doing so. The key word is "accidentally." God can control the world, so any act of suffering is NOT an accident; it is in accordance to his will.

You say if you had power of God you would make a world without suffering. I am glad you feel that way, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Sure it does. I am morally superior to your god.

You do have power to change how you interact with life around you, don't you? And you do have control with how you feel about life being terminated no matter what the life form.

Right. And I purposely avoid causing any form of life that feels pain to suffer. God, on the other hand, doesn't; he willfully allows it.

So your only argument can be that we as humans are just different, than the idea of a God. Because with God it HAS to be enjoyment if he wathces suffering, but with humans it is just business as usual.

The difference is we NEED to kill in order to survive, so we NEED to justify the act of killing with our conscience, otherwise we would starve to death. God doesn't NEED to kill; he is in no danger of dying. He could effortlessly prevent all death, all suffering without any repercussions.

This is the world he created, so it's logical to assume this is the world that he prefers; he prefers watching us suffer. If he didn't like it, he could easily stop the suffering.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I do feel it weighing on my conscience when I accidentally run over a skunk, and I would certainly avoid doing so. The key word is "accidentally." God can control the world, so any act of suffering is NOT an accident; it is in accordance to his will.



Sure it does. I am morally superior to your god.



Right. And I purposely avoid causing any form of life that feels pain to suffer. God, on the other hand, doesn't; he willfully allows it.



The difference is we NEED to kill in order to survive, so we NEED to justify the act of killing with our conscience, otherwise we would starve to death. God doesn't NEED to kill; he is in no danger of dying. He could effortlessly prevent all death, all suffering without any repercussions.

This is the world he created, so it's logical to assume this is the world that he prefers; he prefers watching us suffer. If he didn't like it, he could easily stop the suffering.

Two key words you pointed out
1) accident
2) need

ACCIDENT
Are you kidding me? I just watched my wife this weekend kill 30 wood bees. She struggled with it for a while and tried to accept them, but they kept eating our Gazeebo to an unsafe level. So she killed them. No accident.

whatever the rational, we still kill when it fits our needs.

NEED
Again are you kidding me? My older brother has been a vegan for almost 15 years, and uses NO animal product what so ever. So rethink and repost.

I really want to continue this with you, but there is just nothing I can work with from you last post.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Two key words you pointed out
1) accident
2) need

ACCIDENT
Are you kidding me? I just watched my wife this weekend kill 30 wood bees. She struggled with it for a while and tried to accept them, but they kept eating our Gazeebo to an unsafe level. So she killed them. No accident.

whatever the rational, we still kill when it fits our needs.

Some would view that as an immoral act.

NEED
Again are you kidding me? My older brother has been a vegan for almost 15 years, and uses NO animal product what so ever. So rethink and repost.

He still accidentally kills, even if just by rolling over and killing a tiny bug in his sleep. The point is there's no way for humans to completely avoid killing, whereas for God it would be effortless.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

NEED
Again are you kidding me? My older brother has been a vegan for almost 15 years, and uses NO animal product what so ever. So rethink and repost.

I must be missing something.

Are you equating the life of an insect and a mammal, but making a distinction between plants and animals?

If so, why?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Also, not everyone has the luxury of being vegan. Some would starve to death if not for animal products.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

He still accidentally kills, even if just by rolling over and killing a tiny bug in his sleep. The point is there's no way for humans to completely avoid killing, whereas for God it would be effortless.

Agreed it would be effortless. The debate is whether or not it is immoral that God has allowed it to happen.
I don't deny I struggle with this, but I don't think we can apply our definition of immoral to God. When the definition of immoral is simply a set of accepted beliefs or guidelines that have been broken. Who are we to setup those guidelines, when as I have pointed out we kill for pleasure, accident, survival, and other reasons.

Don't you think it is a bit questionable for us to define immoral? Well obviously you don't, but I think you should consider what I am saying at least.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I must be missing something.

Are you equating the life of an insect and a mammal, but making a distinction between plants and animals?

If so, why?

Well that is an excellent point. Can we prove plants have feelings? If so than I would say the argument should stand for both at that point.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Agreed it would be effortless. The debate is whether or not it is immoral that God has allowed it to happen.

If God can just as easily create a world with no suffering, but instead chooses to create a world with suffering, that is clearly immoral.

I don't deny I struggle with this, but I don't think we can apply our definition of immoral to God.

It's good that you struggle with this. It shows that you're morally superior to the god of the Bible.

When the definition of immoral is simply a set of accepted beliefs or guidelines that have been broken. Who are we to setup those guidelines, when as I have pointed out we kill for pleasure, accident, survival, and other reasons.

Killing for pleasure is immoral. There's no way around killing by accident and survival other than suicide.

Don't you think it is a bit questionable for us to define immoral? Well obviously you don't, but I think you should consider what I am saying at least.

No, it's not questionable, for all of the reasons I've already stated in this thread.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If God can just as easily create a world with no suffering, but instead chooses to create a world with suffering, that is clearly immoral.



It's good that you struggle with this. It shows that you're morally superior to the god of the Bible.



Killing for pleasure is immoral. There's no way around killing by accident and survival other than suicide.



No, it's not questionable, for all of the reasons I've already stated in this thread.

You are defining moral and immoral according to your own life view. Which is not a universal definition. I tried to find your definition, but couldn't find it on the net.

So again, who are you to apply your definition of morality to God? doesn't make much sense.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You are defining moral and immoral according to your own life view. Which is not a universal definition. I tried to find your definition, but couldn't find it on the net.

So again, who are you to apply your definition of morality to God? doesn't make much sense.

That's right, everyone has their own definition of morality. However, we can all agree that pointless suffering is immoral. God willingly allows pointless suffering, so he is immoral.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

That's right, everyone has their own definition of morality. However, we can all agree that pointless suffering is immoral. God willingly allows pointless suffering, so he is immoral.

No I don't think that pointless suffering is immoral. the argument can be made that the the very idea "pointless suffering" does not even exist. That all suffering has a point behind it. You may not like thatpoint, but it doesn't take away its meaning.

 

[CarlinKnew]

No I don't think that pointless suffering is immoral.

Allowing someone to die a slow, painful death is morally correct in your eyes?

the argument can be made that the the very idea "pointless suffering" does not even exist. That all suffering has a point behind it. You may not like thatpoint, but it doesn't take away its meaning.

If you can look a parent in the face whose child was brutally raped and beaten to death and tell her "It's OK, God had a reason for that to happen" then I don't know how you could live with yourself.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Allowing someone to die a slow, painful death is morally correct in your eyes?

Again so you are further defining moral now as watching a slow painful death. As earlier you pointed out that it is worse the a fast painful death.

The question is not whether it is morally correct in my eyes or your eyes, rather who gets to define what is moral or immoral. And I would say again you believe what you believe because of what you have been taught. You are self righteous. Do you disagree?

If you can look a parent in the face whose child was brutally raped and beaten to death and tell her "It's OK, God had a reason for that to happen" then I don't know how you could live with yourself.

Again you are making this about me for one, and secondly you are trying to make a plea for emotional support for your beliefs.

Your statement about child death and torture and YOUR views on moral standards does not at all address the subject at hand. For all I know the parents of that child instantly turn to God for comfort.

Your emotional plea does not work either when we consider the ant. It is epic and all to paint a horrible picture of a child going through this, but it merely confuses the subject at hand.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's right, everyone has their own definition of morality. However, we can all agree that pointless suffering is immoral. God willingly allows pointless suffering, so he is immoral.

You've got it backwards. Anything god does is moral, by definition. He's not bound by our puny and backward ideals, such as not wanting to cause suffering. Everything god does is out of love, so if you die a slow, horrible, painful death, it's only because god is good and loves you so much.