What if you KNEW there was a God.

[Thanda]

You realize you've just openly equated your god to a genocidal dictator, right?

No I didn't. The person I was responding to did. I merely answered his question about whether dictators can be doing things the right way. Take the recently late former leader of Singapore as another example. He too was a verified dictator. Yet he brought his country out of abject poverty into being one of the leading countries in the world.

So no, I don't make assumptions of evil about everyone CNN calls a dictator.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. Take Saddam Hussein for example. No doubt he ruled his people with an iron fist. America went in to "liberate" the people. They gave them the "miracle cure" of all societal problems: democracy. The people have been killing each other ever since. So it turns out that Saddam was not so dumb.

So you think Saddam's acts of genocide on his own people were justified?

True. But you have no credible reason why God wouldn't be doing what is right.

Yes I would. To me, it appears that everything God is doing would be wrong. If you see someone murdering a whole bunch of people with a shotgun, you don't ASSUME that what they're doing might be justified.

Your belief that he would do the wrong thing even when he knows what is right is baseless.

God "changed his mind" about human and animal sacrifice and tested people many times in the Bible by asking them to do something that was against their desires.

That God has done things you don't approve of is no proof that God does the wrong thing when he knows what is right. You don't know what's right (in the universal scheme of things) and you therefore can pass no credible judgement on whether or not God is a hypocrite.

Yes I can. If God says "x is wrong" and then does x, that makes God a hypocrite.

You are like the man who knows nothing about business who accuses a business man of being heartless for retrenching half his workforce when in reality he just saved half his workforce from being jobless in the near future. The prudent thing is to always ask first before passing judgement.

And why is asking questions important? Because the answers we receive may change our minds. What you're suggesting I do is, without questioning, just accept that God is right and everything God says and does is right. My position is: "I will not change my mind unless God gives me a good reason to". You're the one who isn't asking questions, and you're the one who is just assuming God is right without any good reason. To use your analogy, you're like someone buying into a pyramid scheme and trusting the speaker because he says he's worth trusting. I'm the person standing up and saying "Why should we trust you?"

Yes I notice that you are only willing to make assumptions that God is evil.

No I'm not. But if everything God does appears to be evil and God isn't forthcoming with any kind of explanation, I can't assume anything other than that God is evil. See the guy with the shotgun analogy above. From my perspective, I can't reach any conclusion other than that he is a psychotic killer. There is a possibility that their shotgun massacre actually had a reasonable explanation and that they were right to kill a bunch of people, but until such a time I'm not justified in having any position othan than that he is a murderous nut job.

Why wouldn't he? When a student continually fails at a university do they not dismiss him from the university?

You keep using these inaccurate analogies to try and justify these things, but they never work. We're not talking about earning a degree. We are talking about the concept of finite deeds vs, infinite punishment/reward. A University may be justified in failing its students, but they are not justified in locking that student in a basement and torturing them forever just because they failed one year. See why your analogy is inaccurate?

Your inability to understand how pain and suffering ultimately benefit humanity is actually surprising. You seem to be of the opinion that great people are made from pain free lives. Do yourself a favour. Look up all the great people in history that you know (those who are great according to you standards) and try and do a calculation to check how many of them had problem free lives. And though correlation is not causation most people recognize that without adversity people would never become great.

I never said that, nor is it even implied by anything I've written. It's quite simple: if God has the power to prevent suffering, without any consequence, why don't they? Why would a God who has the power to literally do anything choose to enact suffering on his creation purely to teach them a lesson when the same lesson could be learned in a infinite variety of ways that don't involve huge amounts of unnecessary pain or death? Why would a truly moral, loving being do that?

No you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm saying God's morality takes into account people's post earth life.

In what way?

Yours only takes into account their earthly existence. Therefore you model is missing at least one very important variable.

Again, in what way? Is it not possible that I would be rewarded anyway?

And it is not about what one grants or doesn't. A university grants / awards people degrees actually people either qualify for degrees or they don't. The university awarding it is a mere formality. God grants eternal reward or punishment to those who qualify themselves for either.

And my point is that it should, morally, be impossible to qualify for either. No deeds are so good that they merit eternal reward, and no deed is so bad that it merits eternal punishment. There is no way to morally justify such a system.

My opinion is irrelevant - I want what is best for humanity in the long (eternal) run. I have no means by which to judge what that is by myself.

Yes you do. You have a brain.

You think your reasons are good. You don't know what good reasons are and aren't.

Neither do you. So why do you assume God's reasons would be good?

My assumption is that both you and God are doing what you think is best. Whether it is good or not I cannot judge with my limited knowledge. But what I know is that God has more information with which to judge what is best than you do.

So you disregard all of the patently immoral and nonsensical things God does and just assume all of God's actions are for the best? If you cannot determine for yourself what is right and what is wrong then you cannot determine who is superior: me or God.

And yet despite your confession that you can't judge God's standard you actually have already judged both it and him repeatedly in our conversation.

Of course I did. I believe enacting genocide is immoral. I believe any being that enacts genocide is immoral. I believe any moral system which justified genocide is immoral. That doesn't mean I am incapable of changing my mind, but nor does it make my judgement worthless. Until such a time as God can demonstrate that genocide is justified, I am justified in believing they are immoral.

So a child who obeys his parents despite not understanding (even when parents explain a child will not always understand) all the reason for all their rules has an inferior standard than the kid who does only what makes sense to him?

Not quite. "What makes sense" isn't what's moral. But a child who understands why something is right, and acts in accordance with their conscience and their understanding of others, will always be morally superior to a child who is just blindly following instructions either because of threat or reward.

And yes, in comparison to an all knowing being you are a child.

And in comparison to a being who enacts genocide, I am morally superior.

My attitude would be one of curiosity and asking the teacher why my answer is wrong. If Stephen Hawkings told me one plus one isn't actually two - I would be all ears to hear what explanation he is about to give. My first assumption would not be that he is crazy and wrong, but rather that he is about to teach me some wonderful new mathematical principle I had not understood before.

Inaccurate analogies seem to be all there is in your arsenal. If Stephen Hawking tortured a child to death in front of you, I doubt you would be sitting there wondering what the good reason was for it.

So you would pray then?

If your definition of prayer means "asking God questions", then I suppose I would. But I would accept nothing less than a clear, unambiguous answer.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No I didn't. The person I was responding to did. I merely answered his question about whether dictators can be doing things the right way. Take the recently late former leader of Singapore as another example. He too was a verified dictator. Yet he brought his country out of abject poverty into being one of the leading countries in the world.

So no, I don't make assumptions of evil about everyone CNN calls a dictator.

The outcome of the actions aren't the issue; the actions themselves are...
I'll even agree that there was some stability under Saddam's rule, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a raving lunatic does it? Those people weren't free, regardless of how clam it may have been under his iron fist. When people are murdered for thought crimes, regional stability is a sham.

If Hitler's regime had been victorious, it would have been a great time to be a Nazi, for sure. The stability, growth, and prosperity of the entire European continent would have been amazing probably. Does that outcome justify the means?

Did Saddam murder his own people, "for the greater good"?
Did Hitler systematically destroy millions of people "for the greater good"?
Did Yahweh command his subjects to slaughter entire cultures during their expansion East "for the greater good"?

Yeah... Yeah that's all true.

 

[Parsimony]

Interesting conundrum: if one does not subscribe to objective morality, can one say that the God of the Bible is objectively immoral?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Interesting conundrum: if one does not subscribe to objective morality, can one say that the God of the Bible is objectively immoral?

Not objectively, no. - But that person can certainly make arguments the morality of god as it pertains to his morality.

Similarly, if God's morality is supposedly objective, then shouldn't it be easily explainable against the puny subjective morality of man?

 

[Thanda]

So you think Saddam's acts of genocide on his own people were justified?

I have never done an investigation of Saddam's genocide infact. I only know that Americans always talk about them to make their bombing a country back by 50 years seem more palatable.

Yes I would. To me, it appears that everything God is doing would be wrong. If you see someone murdering a whole bunch of people with a shotgun, you don't ASSUME that what they're doing might be justified.

Indeed I don't assume when a mere mortal with no more knowledge than my own starts murdering a bunch people that he is doing it for the greater good. But when the Creator of heaven and earth decides that a person or a group of people's time here on earth is up and that it is time for them to move on to the next life I suspect that he may have a good reason for his decision.

Yes I can. If God says "x is wrong" and then does x, that makes God a hypocrite.

Ah, so when the boss of your company tells you you're not allowed to tell anyone their fired and then he goes and fires them he is a hypocrite?

And why is asking questions important? Because the answers we receive may change our minds. What you're suggesting I do is, without questioning, just accept that God is right and everything God says and does is right. My position is: "I will not change my mind unless God gives me a good reason to". You're the one who isn't asking questions, and you're the one who is just assuming God is right without any good reason. To use your analogy, you're like someone buying into a pyramid scheme and trusting the speaker because he says he's worth trusting. I'm the person standing up and saying "Why should we trust you?"

I'm suggesting you ask BEFORE you pass judgement. I think you would agree the world would be a better place if we all did more of that.

No I'm not. But if everything God does appears to be evil and God isn't forthcoming with any kind of explanation, I can't assume anything other than that God is evil. See the guy with the shotgun analogy above. From my perspective, I can't reach any conclusion other than that he is a psychotic killer. There is a possibility that their shotgun massacre actually had a reasonable explanation and that they were right to kill a bunch of people, but until such a time I'm not justified in having any position othan than that he is a murderous nut job.

You keep comparing people who take lives they never gave to God, the giver of life. He put us on this earth. He seems to be the most appropriate person to decide when we need to leave it. If people created themselves and put themselves on this earth then you would be justified in comparing God to a murderer.

You keep using these inaccurate analogies to try and justify these things, but they never work. We're not talking about earning a degree. We are talking about the concept of finite deeds vs, infinite punishment/reward. A University may be justified in failing its students, but they are not justified in locking that student in a basement and torturing them forever just because they failed one year. See why your analogy is inaccurate?

And what makes you think God punishes people eternally or rewards people eternally for the things they do. God says the wicked go to hell and the righteous go to heaven. The terms wicked and righteous are not merely descriptions of what people once did. They are descriptions of what they do, what they say, what they think - they are descriptions of who they are or who they have become. If a person in hell ever became righteous he would go to heaven. If a person in heaven became wicked they would go to hell (e.g. Satan, who was once in heaven). Therefore there is infinite reward and punishment for infinite being.

I never said that, nor is it even implied by anything I've written. It's quite simple: if God has the power to prevent suffering, without any consequence, why don't they? Why would a God who has the power to literally do anything choose to enact suffering on his creation purely to teach them a lesson when the same lesson could be learned in a infinite variety of ways that don't involve huge amounts of unnecessary pain or death? Why would a truly moral, loving being do that?

And who said God has the power to prevent pain and suffering without any consequence? Admittedly I have not read all of the bible but I think I have read most of it. And from my reading I have never come across this doctrine in any of it's passages that God can do anything without consequence. A God who can act without consequence could have no effect on his environment.
And what are these "variety" of ways that don't involve pain or death by which we could learn? Do you know them or are you making more assumptions again? Indeed do you even know what the lessons are that we need to learn?

Secondly, I again come to the point of the necessity of our trials. It appears trials are necessary in order for human beings to learn and grow. This is why God doesn't spare those who believe in them from difficulties. Apparently in the universe out there things are not roses and butterflies. Apparently things are quite tough and require tough people in order to survive and thrive. God would be doing us a great disservice by not preparing us for the difficulties that lie before us.

Yes you do. You have a brain.

I don't know about yours but my brain has no idea about what life is like after death. You must donate your brain to science if yours knows.

Neither do you. So why do you assume God's reasons would be good?

So you disregard all of the patently immoral and nonsensical things God does and just assume all of God's actions are for the best? If you cannot determine for yourself what is right and what is wrong then you cannot determine who is superior: me or God.

I don't necessarily assume they're good. But I assume their best. At the very least I assume their better than mine or yours since I'm certain he knows and understands more than I do about everything including myself.

Of course I did. I believe enacting genocide is immoral. I believe any being that enacts genocide is immoral. I believe any moral system which justified genocide is immoral. That doesn't mean I am incapable of changing my mind, but nor does it make my judgement worthless. Until such a time as God can demonstrate that genocide is justified, I am justified in believing they are immoral.

I've already touched on this but I will repeat. I find nothing wrong with the person who put us here deciding when it is the right time for us to leave. But don't worry, if you ever create your own world with your own people I will question God's integrity if he starts killing your people.

Not quite. "What makes sense" isn't what's moral. But a child who understands why something is right, and acts in accordance with their conscience and their understanding of others, will always be morally superior to a child who is just blindly following instructions either because of threat or reward.

Yes that child will be morally superior. But what about before the point when the child understands. What is more moral - for him to disobey his parents because he doesn't yet understand or to follow them in the knowledge that they likely know and understand something he is not fully able to comprehend at this time?

Don't assume that those who adopt God's moral standards do so because they are afraid of him. They might just be very impressed with what he has managed to create and are giving God the benefit of the doubt that he knows more than they do what is right.

Inaccurate analogies seem to be all there is in your arsenal. If Stephen Hawking tortured a child to death in front of you, I doubt you would be sitting there wondering what the good reason was for it.

Stephen Hawkings is a maths genius. He is not the creator of all. Terrible analogy!

If your definition of prayer means "asking God questions", then I suppose I would. But I would accept nothing less than a clear, unambiguous answer.

Yes. God said "Ask and ye shall receive".

 

[jonathan180iq]

I have never done an investigation of Saddam's genocide infact. I only know that Americans always talk about them to make their bombing a country back by 50 years seem more palatable.

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crimes of Saddam Hussein

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE KURDISH GENOCIDE

 

[Thanda]

Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crimes of Saddam Hussein

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE KURDISH GENOCIDE

Thanks. Though I probably would have read up on them before if I was interested.
But I wonder how Saddam's human right record compares to the country that toppled him's international human rights record.

 

[Thanda]

The outcome of the actions aren't the issue; the actions themselves are...
I'll even agree that there was some stability under Saddam's rule, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a raving lunatic does it? Those people weren't free, regardless of how clam it may have been under his iron fist. When people are murdered for thought crimes, regional stability is a sham.

Perhaps he was just the raving lunatic his people needed. Saddam did not create the animosities that exist between ethnic and religious groups in the middle east (as evidenced by the fact that the animosity exists in other parts of the middle east). But he made sure none of that nonsense happened under his watch. He was apparently quite harsh in how he made sure of that. But since the introduction of America's miracle cure of democracy we still haven't found a better solution than what he had. We therefore have no idea if stability can be brought to Iraq by any other means other than those employed by Saddam.

And do not discount the importance of stability. You may call it a sham but in a stable country people can marry and have families. Children can go to school and receive the tools that may one day enable them to transition to a more tolerant and informed society.

Hitler on the other hand brought nothing but debt to and war to his own people. He actually took germany out of stability. That said, apparently crazy tendencies did make the world powers realise they were wrong to oppress Germany the way they did after the first world war. The world powers improved attitude post WWII is what is mainly responsible for Germany becoming the peaceful and great country it is now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have never done an investigation of Saddam's genocide infact. I only know that Americans always talk about them to make their bombing a country back by 50 years seem more palatable.

I'm not interested in the politics, I'm interested in the morality. If you don't know much about Saddam, then what about the US military instead. Do you believe their bombings were justified?

Indeed I don't assume when a mere mortal with no more knowledge than my own starts murdering a bunch people that he is doing it for the greater good. But when the Creator of heaven and earth decides that a person or a group of people's time here on earth is up and that it is time for them to move on to the next life I suspect that he may have a good reason for his decision.

Why? What is the reasoning behind that distinction? Why would you assume any greater reason behind the will of a God than the will of man if both commit the same act?

Ah, so when the boss of your company tells you you're not allowed to tell anyone their fired and then he goes and fires them he is a hypocrite?

No. Someone is a hypocrite if they tell people to be loving, forgiving and caring and then brutally murders people and has them tortured forever.

I'm suggesting you ask BEFORE you pass judgement. I think you would agree the world would be a better place if we all did more of that.

Not when it comes to acts of genocide and murder, and I doubt you feel the same way. You don't "withhold judgement" on someone who you have observed murdering your entire family, when all of your life you have learned to understand and accept the reasons why murder is wrong. It's not impossible for their to be a good reason, but the only way you can withhold judgement of actions such as those is if you have absolutely zero moral compass of your own. Humans simply don't work like that. If God does something I deem evil and does not justify it, I judge God to be evil until such a time as God demonstrates that there was sufficient justification for their actions.

You keep comparing people who take lives they never gave to God, the giver of life. He put us on this earth. He seems to be the most appropriate person to decide when we need to leave it.

Why? How is that any different to saying a parent has the right to murder their child? Not only that, but saying that a parent has a right to imprison and torture their child indefinitely - and that that is not only justified, but actually moral.

If people created themselves and put themselves on this earth then you would be justified in comparing God to a murderer.

I'm justified in comparing God to a murderer if God is responsible for murder. That makes God a murderer.

And what makes you think God punishes people eternally or rewards people eternally for the things they do.

The Bible.

God says the wicked go to hell and the righteous go to heaven. The terms wicked and righteous are not merely descriptions of what people once did. They are descriptions of what they do, what they say, what they think - they are descriptions of who they are or who they have become. If a person in hell ever became righteous he would go to heaven. If a person in heaven became wicked they would go to hell (e.g. Satan, who was once in heaven). Therefore there is infinite reward and punishment for infinite being.

I'm not sure how many Christians would agree with your interpretation of scripture. Is there any Biblical support to this idea that someone can be sent to hell after entering heaven or vice versa?

And who said God has the power to prevent pain and suffering without any consequence?

The Bible. If it is to be believed, then God is all-powerful. If God cannot prevent suffering without consequence, then God clearly is not all-powerful.

Admittedly I have not read all of the bible but I think I have read most of it. And from my reading I have never come across this doctrine in any of it's passages that God can do anything without consequence. A God who can act without consequence could have no effect on his environment.

I said "prevent suffering without negative consequences". Can God do that? Was there any way God could have redeemed the world without flooding it, or having Jesus sacrificed?

And what are these "variety" of ways that don't involve pain or death by which we could learn?

God can literally do anything. They could have simply alleviated the pain and given us greater understanding. He could have merely "reset" the world without any pain or suffering. He could have given everyone a vision. He could have literally done ANYTHING because he is supposedly omnipotent.

Do you know them or are you making more assumptions again? Indeed do you even know what the lessons are that we need to learn?

Are you assuming God isn't all powerful?

Secondly, I again come to the point of the necessity of our trials. It appears trials are necessary in order for human beings to learn and grow.

Why? If God is all-powerful, he can make us learn and grow without any trials.

This is why God doesn't spare those who believe in them from difficulties. Apparently in the universe out there things are not roses and butterflies. Apparently things are quite tough and require tough people in order to survive and thrive. God would be doing us a great disservice by not preparing us for the difficulties that lie before us.

And why does any of that require mass genocide, human and animal sacrifice, slavery and rape? Why would an all-powerful being make those things necessary to any pathway to growth?

I don't know about yours but my brain has no idea about what life is like after death. You must donate your brain to science if yours knows.

My point is that you have the ability to determine what you think is best for humanity in the long run - including whether or not life after death is relevant. If you have no idea what life after death is like, then how exactly can that be any kind of determining factor in any moral system? A large crux of your argument depends on your assertion that my morality is only useful in this life, whereas God's supposedly superior morality takes into account the next life. Since you now admit that you don't have any idea what life after death is like, how can you possibly make this judgement that God's consideration is any more significant than my own, and how can life after death factor into any moral standard you may hold?

I don't necessarily assume they're good. But I assume their best. At the very least I assume their better than mine or yours since I'm certain he knows and understands more than I do about everything including myself.

But doing so requires moral judgement. If you cannot determine what is moral and what isn't, you have no basis to say that God's morality is any superior to mine. Since it has already been firmly established that God can change their mind and is capable of deceit, your assumption that they are right just because they "understand more" is nonsensical. You're just leaping to unjustified conclusions.

I've already touched on this but I will repeat. I find nothing wrong with the person who put us here deciding when it is the right time for us to leave.

Then you are immoral. If you don't believe a parent has the right to torture their child, then you shouldn't believe God has the right to torture his creation either.

Yes that child will be morally superior.

Congratulations: you have just admitted that forming your own morality based on good reasons and empathy is superior to blindly following another person's morality just due to the threat of punishment or reward. You have just admitted that my morality is superior to Gods.

But what about before the point when the child understands. What is more moral - for him to disobey his parents because he doesn't yet understand or to follow them in the knowledge that they likely know and understand something he is not fully able to comprehend at this time?

If they just follow demands, they are not being moral. If they can't comprehend why something is bad and are just acting in accordance with demands made of them, then they are not moral because they are not using their own moral judgement.

Don't assume that those who adopt God's moral standards do so because they are afraid of him.

Not "afraid" necessarily. They could be driven by self-interest, ignorance or just plain laziness as well.

They might just be very impressed with what he has managed to create and are giving God the benefit of the doubt that he knows more than they do what is right.

Which is an immoral thing to do. To give anyone the benefit of the doubt without any good reason and therefore to trust all of their judgements is an immoral position to hold.

Stephen Hawkings is a maths genius. He is not the creator of all. Terrible analogy!

It was a question, not an analogy. Someone who knew more than you was torturing a child to death - would you reserve judgement until they explained their actions?

Yes. God said "Ask and ye shall receive".

'Kay then.

 

[savagewind]

I think I might like not knowing.

 

[Augustus]

The existence of God would be a fact that informs my views in general including moral views, like other facts. That's it.

Have you actually read Humanae Vitae? I have. It's based on a logical fallacy (inference from apparent design) and applies its argument in an inconsistent - IMO hypocritical - way (the argument it gives condemns cars and treadmills as strongly as it condemns birth control and artificial insemination). It wouldn't be true or valid even if God existed.

BTW: did you understand the point I made in my last point? Your reply had nothing to do with what I said, so I'm really not sure if you did.

My original point was basically: if it was a certainty that God did exist, I would change my behaviour to try to live my life according to whatever I believed was the closest interpretation of God's message that I could. If I knew for certain that one form of religion (Catholicism, Haredi Judaism, Salafi Islam or whatever) was closest to God's message then I would take my cues from that form of religion. If Salafi Islam was correct, I wouldn't for example, try to rationalise the free mixing of the sexes, gambling or drinking alcohol - even though these are currently things I am very much in favour of.

As regards you point about humans knowing about good/evil, for the purpose of the point that I was making, an discussion of the theology of St Paul is not really necessary. Obviously everything I do now that I judge is still ok under the new reality, I'll keep doing. The point was that where I'm certain/pretty certain what I'm doing is a sin, then I would change my behaviour. That's why I said I hoped Anglicans had the right end of the stick, rather than the evangelicals.

To make it more clear cut, I assume that your lifestyle and moral code is very different to that of the average Salafi. If you knew 100% factually that they were following the 1 true religion of the 1 true God who was everything that he is made out to be, in this situation would you strive to become the best (Salafi) Muslim that you could be and forsake you ethical beliefs that were clearly in contrast to the will of God? Of course you still have to interpret the teachings of God, but would you accept that when God's morality differs with your own, then it is your morality that is wrong and disobeying Gods will is harmful to both yourself and other people?

 

[Thanda]

I'm not interested in the politics, I'm interested in the morality. If you don't know much about Saddam, then what about the US military instead. Do you believe their bombings were justified?

No. They lied about why they were going there and they were under no threat. To this day they have not given a single good reason why their bombing of Iraq was justified despite being asked many times. Furthermore the are not God and have no right to remove people out of this world without a good reason: which they have not provided.

Why? What is the reasoning behind that distinction? Why would you assume any greater reason behind the will of a God than the will of man if both commit the same act?

Because he is the Creator. Just like I would assume that an owner of a company has a better reason moving all the company's money to a different bank account than the creditors clerk. Incidentally the bank would also make the same assumption.

No. Someone is a hypocrite if they tell people to be loving, forgiving and caring and then brutally murders people and has them tortured forever.

So someone is not a hypocrite who gives people they're just reward especially after he has repeatedly warned them and given them lots of time to change.

Not when it comes to acts of genocide and murder, and I doubt you feel the same way. You don't "withhold judgement" on someone who you have observed murdering your entire family, when all of your life you have learned to understand and accept the reasons why murder is wrong. It's not impossible for their to be a good reason, but the only way you can withhold judgement of actions such as those is if you have absolutely zero moral compass of your own. Humans simply don't work like that. If God does something I deem evil and does not justify it, I judge God to be evil until such a time as God demonstrates that there was sufficient justification for their actions.

You equate all killing with murder when referring to God (I know you don't actually believe all killing is murder). God reserves the right to take anyone out of this earth when he deems fit. In fact you seem to be working under the impression that humans belong on this earth. Like it is their right to be here. Humans didn't put themselves here. God put them here for his own reason. And he has decreed that this place should only be a temporary abode. So why are you so angry when God takes people out of it? It really boggles my mind.

Why? How is that any different to saying a parent has the right to murder their child? Not only that, but saying that a parent has a right to imprison and torture their child indefinitely - and that that is not only justified, but actually moral.

A parent is a delivery boy, a middle man. No women sits and thinks about the creation of her child. She just leads her normal life and lets nature take its course. Humans do not create anyone - God does the creating. And certainly no parent has any role in the creation of the human soul or spirit. The body is just a machine. God will decide when he wants that spirit to leave the earth.

Funny thing is though, the way you argued this point, someone would think you are against abortion - which I doubt you are.

I'm not sure how many Christians would agree with your interpretation of scripture. Is there any Biblical support to this idea that someone can be sent to hell after entering heaven or vice versa?

I don't think there is. The reason why it would never happen is because God knows each of us perfectly. So at the final judgement when he decrees that we should go to heaven or hell it will be with the knowledge that we have finally reached our equilibrium and that we will never change. So although it will not happen that someone will go from heaven to hell or from hell to heaven that is because no one will change after that point. But it stands to reason that if bad people are in hell then there are no good people. And if a person was good they would not be in hell.

The Bible. If it is to be believed, then God is all-powerful. If God cannot prevent suffering without consequence, then God clearly is not all-powerful.

The bible says nothing about God being able to do illogical things. The only time I remember the Bible talking about God being able to do the impossible is in reference to rich people going to heaven. Jesus said it would be impossible for a rich person to make it to heaven on their own. But he said with God it would not be impossible.

God has stated his purpose: "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" And he has all the power and knowledge to accomplish that. But that doesn't mean he can use illogical means to do so. Apparently God only wants in heaven who want to be there. And so hypnotizing people seems to be out of the question. Seeing visions and miracles doesn't seem to help either as evidenced by the children of Israel's disobedience after seeing: fire come down from heaven, the red sea parting, God speaking out of a cloud of fire and manna falling from heaven amongst other things. So clearly there can be no short cuts with human beings. They can only be taught "line upon line, precept upon precept" through their own experience the good from the evil.

And you may naturally ask, why didn't God make us less stubborn. There is a part of us God did not create and which he did not create. In Doctrine and Covenants 93 we have the following:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;​

These verses are very clear. The intelligence of man (man's consciousness) and all the elements (the building blocks of the universe) are eternal. They have always been there and always will be. God took the elements and created bodies for man's consciousness. He is now trying to enlighten man. If we reject God we will be sent back to the darkness and chaos from which we came - which will be hell for us. That sounds quite fair to me.

But doing so requires moral judgement. If you cannot determine what is moral and what isn't, you have no basis to say that God's morality is any superior to mine. Since it has already been firmly established that God can change their mind and is capable of deceit, your assumption that they are right just because they "understand more" is nonsensical. You're just leaping to unjustified conclusions.

I have not determined that God is moral. I have repeatedly said that I do not have the knowledge by which to judge a universal being. I have only judged that God is likely to be right. Having said so it does not mean I will not seek to understand his reasons for doing things the way he does - of course I will seek understanding. But what I won't do is pass judgement on him that his intentions are evil when I do not understand the ultimate (eternal) consequence of all he does.

Then you are immoral. If you don't believe a parent has the right to torture their child, then you shouldn't believe God has the right to torture his creation either.

A parent did not create the child. If I create a painting do I not have the right to destroy it? But you don't have the right to destroy the painting since it does not belong you and was not made by you. Parents have no right to kill their children because they did not create them. Evidence that parents do not create their children can be found in the fact that they cannot bring their children back to life once the kill them. God has shown repeatedly that he can.

Congratulations: you have just admitted that forming your own morality based on good reasons and empathy is superior to blindly following another person's morality just due to the threat of punishment or reward. You have just admitted that my morality is superior to Gods.

Again you are confusing things. God understands why he does what he does. Why then are you saying your morality is superior to God's

If they just follow demands, they are not being moral. If they can't comprehend why something is bad and are just acting in accordance with demands made of them, then they are not moral because they are not using their own moral judgement.

Of course they can't understand why it is bad - except that their more knowledgeable parents believe it is bad. But they have adopted it as a rule in their lives that they will listen to their parents until such time as they are of age to understand things in a similar way that their parents do.

You see it is folly to assume human beings have original ideas for morality. We are all influenced in what we believe is right or wrong. So the child teenager who decides he will no longer listen to his parents usually ends up listening to his friends - or pastor, or teacher or an author. He doesn't cease to be influenced - he simply chooses a different source of influence. So he is in no better moral position than the teenager who has decided to continue to let his parents influence his moral judgement.

Which is an immoral thing to do. To give anyone the benefit of the doubt without any good reason and therefore to trust all of their judgements is an immoral position to hold.

Except if that person is the creator of the universe.

It was a question, not an analogy. Someone who knew more than you was torturing a child to death - would you reserve judgement until they explained their actions?

I see no reason why I should give difference to someone who knows more than me about maths in moral matters. That is like expecting me to trust Einstein with a heart operation. That is not where his expertise lie.

But God apparently knows everything so I clearly have good reason to trust him.

 

[LuisDantas]

And people ask me why I don't value the Bible.

 

[Augustus]

I don't give a toss about the afterlife, and I think any God that grants anyone eternal punishment or eternal reward for finite deeds is substantially less moral than I am

It sound like you are speaking from a perspective in which you still doubt that there is an afterlife. This is a valid argument only based on the uncertainty of heaven and hell.

To 'not give a toss' about the afterlife is the same as saying 'I don't give a toss if someone decides to carry out the most meticulous and excruciating forms of torture on me'.

If you are taking this into account, then sorry, I just don't believe you. Talk is cheap, but faced with the certainty of an eternity of horrendous suffering, then almost any person in history would throw away their personal morality. Even if people think they are different, most people are not - they are normal. And normal people would do anything to avoid this.

How?
Again, how? God's morality isn't determined by what is best for society. God just decides what is right because that's what God decided is right. Owning slaves is harmful to society. Stoning adulterers is harmful to society. Forcing women to marry their rapists is harmful to society. God doesn't seem to care whether or not their standard is actually good for society or not.

If we are playing along with the thought experiment, God's morality is exactly what is best for society, nothing is good for society except that which God wills. What it might not be best for is individual people though. You are still stuck in a modern secular humanist, Western mindset that places the individual as the prime unit.

The difference being that the harm Stalin caused was clear and obvious. What harm would I be causing by adopting my own set of moral principles, based on doing the best I could for people around me, rather than God's arbitrarily dictated morality that isn't really beneficial to the lives of anyone?

There is plenty of evidence that disobeying God's will causes harm. See the flood, Sodom and Gomora, etc.

You're still a 'useful idiot', except probably more flagrantly than the Western Stalinists were, they had plausible deniability.

Since I've already said I would happily disagree with God's morality and adopt my own regardless, I don't really see the point in asking this question. The answer is obviously "yes".

Again, you are still operating from the old paradigm of doubting the veracity of God's message. You freely admit that you would disregard any of God's teachings that did not meet with your personal seal of approval, and deem that you can see the bigger picture better than the person who created and micro-manages the bigger picture.

Yep. Or, more accurately, "Doing that was immoral considering you have the power to literally do anything you want and yet decided on a cause of action that caused incredible suffering for no gain whatsoever, and that makes you an immoral monster and you should be ashamed of yourself you sadistic jerk."

The problem of human tendency towards hubris in a nutshell: 'Anything that I don't understand cannot be rational or useful'.

But it's still the best we have. I'm not going to adopt God's standard unless I have a very good reason to, and I don't see any reason to throw away my human capacity for reason in deference to a God who's just going to tell me what to think. What would be the point in giving humans a logical brain and a moral compass if God's just going to dictate what we should think anyway?

Again, an atheist argument based on the uncertainty of God's existence and message. It's not 'the best we have' if you have God's message and know that His message is true.

Might as well take lessons on Physics from a monkey with a typewriter rather than Stephen Hawking (except Stephen Hawking is fallible so it's actually worse)

If God knows so much, then God should communicate their reasoning clearly to us. They shouldn't just tell us to follow their demands unquestioningly. I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect an all-knowing being to provide convincing reasons to adopt their moral system.

Again, you are saying 'I know better than an omniscient and omnipotent God', excuse me if I find this ridiculous.

Why? You don't seem to have addressed the problem that God simply isn't a good or reliable determinant of objective morality.

Given the thought experiment, He is the only determinant. He created it.

It is like saying the author is not the only determinant in the content of his text or a programmer is not the only determinant in their computer programme.

No I don't, I just know the Christian God exists. My understanding of the Christian God is that they are a largely immoral, sadistic bully who determines their morality to be the best morality for no good reason. I wouldn't need to revise my moral compass at all.

Again, atheist logic based on the uncertainty of God's existence and arguments drawing on the perceived inconsistencies of divine teachings versus 21st century human morality.

"God says so" isn't a reason, it's just a demand. God has demanded human and animal sacrifice in the past, and justified slavery, genocide and rape. I don't trust God's demands as an accurate description of objective morality. If God is truly moral, then God would understand and accept why I don't adopt their clearly malevolent dictatorship.

If God exists, 'God says so' is the best of all reasons. It is not 'just a demand', it is an argument based on the purest and most meticulous reasoning.

If God appeared to you right now and told you to kill your family, is that the correct and moral thing to do?

If God appeared to me now, I'd assume that I was hallucinating and was having some kind of a breakdown. What this discussion is based on though is if it was absolutely undeniable that God existed - however that came to be. It is just a thought experiment, we can ignore the practicalities of how it came to be.

In that case, I would have to come to the conclusion that killing anybody I was divinely commanded to (assuming that it is impossible for me to be wrong), would be the best thing to do. Maybe it would be like Abraham and Isaac/Ishmael - and by following God's command I would actually potentially be saving my family from torment.

 

[icehorse]

This is more specifically aimed at atheists and the Luke-warm Christians. But those of other religions are welcome to replace the Jesus and so forth with another deity or prophet. The point is, do you believe your lack of commitment to living the way you believe the God of Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism etc etc.) is a result of uncertainty or whether it is a case of not wanting to live your life any differently.

First off, I'd like some clarification... does whichever god you're imagining confirm the scripture that's been handed down to us, or will this god clear up all the confusion that swirls around the related scripture?

I can imagine a god I'd love. I cannot imagine a god I'd pray to...

 

[dust1n]

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

Some of the former, some of the latter, but mostly I don't see the things that Bible teaches as actually just, insightful, well-reasoned or correct at all. So, if God showed up to announce himself to me, I'd feel more like how most Christians probably feel about Obama. Yea, I don't like it, but it's there, and I got to deal with it now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My original point was basically: if it was a certainty that God did exist, I would change my behaviour to try to live my life according to whatever I believed was the closest interpretation of God's message that I could. If I knew for certain that one form of religion (Catholicism, Haredi Judaism, Salafi Islam or whatever) was closest to God's message then I would take my cues from that form of religion. If Salafi Islam was correct, I wouldn't for example, try to rationalise the free mixing of the sexes, gambling or drinking alcohol - even though these are currently things I am very much in favour of.

So you take as given that God's judgement is necessarily correct and good? Why?

As regards you point about humans knowing about good/evil, for the purpose of the point that I was making, an discussion of the theology of St Paul is not really necessary.

Look back at the OP. This whole thread assumes for argument's sake that the Bible is correct. One of the implications of the Bible being correct is that human beings must have a divine knowledge of good and evil.

Obviously everything I do now that I judge is still ok under the new reality, I'll keep doing. The point was that where I'm certain/pretty certain what I'm doing is a sin, then I would change my behaviour. That's why I said I hoped Anglicans had the right end of the stick, rather than the evangelicals.

To make it more clear cut, I assume that your lifestyle and moral code is very different to that of the average Salafi. If you knew 100% factually that they were following the 1 true religion of the 1 true God who was everything that he is made out to be, in this situation would you strive to become the best (Salafi) Muslim that you could be and forsake you ethical beliefs that were clearly in contrast to the will of God? Of course you still have to interpret the teachings of God, but would you accept that when God's morality differs with your own, then it is your morality that is wrong and disobeying Gods will is harmful to both yourself and other people?

This thread is about the Christian god specifically. There's too much variation between religions for me to come up with general statements about what I'd do if (insert god) was real and (insert holy book) was true that would work in every instance.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Perhaps he was just the raving lunatic his people needed

Was Saddam the raving lunatic that the Kurds needed?

Was Yahweh the raving lunatic that the Hivites or the Egyptian children needed?

I don't think you fully understand what you are trying to defend here.

This is what "...his people needed" looks like.
Every single one of those lumps in the dirt was a completely innocent human being.
We shouldn't fool ourselves when reading about the people of Israel storming into a village and murdering every man, woman, and child by thinking that it was a pretty sight. The image above is a gentle reminder of what God was supposedly requiring his people to do, since as you said "stability should not be underestimated."

 

[Augustus]

So you take as given that God's judgement is necessarily correct and good? Why?

Look back at the OP. This whole thread assumes for argument's sake that the Bible is correct. One of the implications of the Bible being correct is that human beings must have a divine knowledge of good and evil.
This thread is about the Christian god specifically. There's too much variation between religions for me to come up with general statements about what I'd do if (insert god) was real and (insert holy book) was true that would work in every instance.

The OP added this in post 5

This is more specifically aimed at atheists and the Luke-warm Christians. But those of other religions are welcome to replace the Jesus and so forth with another deity or prophet. The point is, do you believe your lack of commitment to living the way you believe the God of Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism etc etc.) is a result of uncertainty or whether it is a case of not wanting to live your life any differently.

If you knew the Salafis were following God's true teachings, would you try to be the best (Salafi) Muslim you could, even when these teachings contradict your present morality?

The point I was making was that it would be irrational and objectively harmful not to follow these teachings. I don't follow them now because I doubt their veracity, but given God's existence I would have to reevaluate everything that I know.

Agree?