Anonymous Coward: As far as I know the Ten Commandments are the only writings directly attributed to God, let's see what he says about this; ...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. Do you reject the word of god on this matter?
As far as I know the Ten Commandments are the only writings directly attributed to God, let's see what he says about this;
...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Do you reject the word of god on this matter?
I'd like to hear some Christians chime in on this without dodging the question. Do you think it's moral to punish the children for the parents' sin, "to the third and fourth generation." What about if the "sin" is simply rejection, something we don't normally consider a "sin" in the context of human beings.
What if I were to act like god? I'm really nice to a girl and ask her to marry me but she declines so I wait till she gets married and start taking my anger out on her children for the crime of "rejecting."
Face it, your god as described in the bible is either illogical or a sadist (probably both).
majevska:Do you think it's moral to punish the children for the parents' sin, "to the third and fourth generation."
You're posing these questions assuming your definition of moral similar to when you ask for the definition of God. If you assume God exists, he cannot be defined on human terms any more than we can explain the universe in simple and concise terms.
majevska:What about if the "sin" is simply rejection, something we don't normally consider a "sin" in the context of human beings.
This makes no sense since sins by definition are transgressions against God.
majevska:What if I were to act like god? I'm really nice to a girl and ask her to marry me but she declines so I wait till she gets married and start taking my anger out on her children for the crime of "rejecting."
Slightly different situation, in that you have no claim of ownership over the girl, whereas God does, in that he created her, her children and everyone else in existance.
While obviously this thread (or threads, I have no idea how many times you have discussed this) probably does nothing to persuade you of the existance of God, neither are you doing anything to disprove it, especially by trying to point out actions that are illogical from your point of view.
ChaseCola:Well there is starvation, torture, rape, and murder widespread all over the world and he is too lazy to even tell us to stop.
As an aside, I find this line of thinking very comical in a libertarian forum (both because of the reasoning and because it's completely untrue). The Bible clearly states that torture, rape and murder are sins and they shouldn't be done. The guidlines have been clearly laid out for anyone who cares to abide by them, but the choice is yours to accept it or not. Do you want freedom or someone forcing you to do exactly what you should at all times?
As for starvation.... Matt 25:
31"But when (Y)the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then (Z)He will sit on His glorious throne.
32"All the nations will be (AA)gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, (AB)as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33and He will put the sheep (AC)on His right, and the goats (AD)on the left.
34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, (AE)inherit the kingdom prepared for you (AF)from the foundation of the world.
35'For (AG)I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; (AH)I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36(AI)naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you (AJ)visited Me; (AK)I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
40"(AL)The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, (AM)to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
Stolz2525: majevska:Do you think it's moral to punish the children for the parents' sin, "to the third and fourth generation." You're posing these questions assuming your definition of moral similar to when you ask for the definition of God. If you assume God exists, he cannot be defined on human terms any more than we can explain the universe in simple and concise terms. majevska:What about if the "sin" is simply rejection, something we don't normally consider a "sin" in the context of human beings. This makes no sense since sins by definition are transgressions against God. majevska:What if I were to act like god? I'm really nice to a girl and ask her to marry me but she declines so I wait till she gets married and start taking my anger out on her children for the crime of "rejecting." Slightly different situation, in that you have no claim of ownership over the girl, whereas God does, in that he created her, her children and everyone else in existance. While obviously this thread (or threads, I have no idea how many times you have discussed this) probably does nothing to persuade you of the existance of God, neither are you doing anything to disprove it, especially by trying to point out actions that are illogical from your point of view.
Okay, so god can be a sadist with his children because he created them, but it is immoral for me to be a sadist to my children, unless you think child abuse is okay. I think most libertarians believe a son/daughter is within their rights to "reject" a parent but somehow this is different for god and it's justifiable for god to act in aggression because of it.
Go ahead and believe god isn't a sadist when he punishes people because he's mystical, not possible to understand, whatever... but you should see that this is the same type of thinking that statists have.
What you're saying in a nutshell is, god seems to act like a malicious sadist in the bible but he's in a different category than humans so I'll just brush it off.
Why not say that we can't criticize the state because statist actions are only malicious from our point of view but make perfect sense if you're a politician. Politicians are in a different category than the rest of us and from their point of view they are doing wonderful things.
Last but not least, you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on you.
majevska:Go ahead and believe god isn't a sadist when he punishes people because he's mystical, not possible to understand, whatever...
I'm not really arguing on it one way or another actually. If you believe God exists then this question is moot because God will do whatever he wants and you are powerless to do anything about it. If you believe God doesn't exist then he obviously isn't punishing people because someone who doesn't exist can't punish people.
majevska:Why not say that we can't criticize the state because statist actions are only malicious from our point of view but make perfect sense if you're a politician.
The state is made up of individual people, no more knowing than you or I in determining the future. Assuming a God, He would know the result of every action, and unlike the state be aware of all future consequences resulting from them. And again, unlike the state, God doesn't force you to do anything, it is entirely by choice.
majevska:Last but not least, you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on you.
I made clear that neither I nor anyone else can prove God's existance, you know this, so why go through this again? If your goal is to win, you can say you've done it.
majevska: Okay, so god can be a sadist with his children because he created them, but it is immoral for me to be a sadist to my children, unless you think child abuse is okay. I think most libertarians believe a son/daughter is within their rights to "reject" a parent but somehow this is different for god and it's justifiable for god to act in aggression because of it. Go ahead and believe god isn't a sadist when he punishes people because he's mystical, not possible to understand, whatever... but you should see that this is the same type of thinking that statists have. What you're saying in a nutshell is, god seems to act like a malicious sadist in the bible but he's in a different category than humans so I'll just brush it off. Why not say that we can't criticize the state because statist actions are only malicious from our point of view but make perfect sense if you're a politician. Politicians are in a different category than the rest of us and from their point of view they are doing wonderful things. Last but not least, you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on you.
Assuming the Christian God, He is the absolute authority of morality, He created morality and so if He desires, anything He does is moral.
You cannot question the source of ethics on His ethics. He is the ethical, the supreme, and if He decides to separate Himself ethically from you, then there is, logically, nothing wrong.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Stolz2525: I made clear that neither I nor anyone else can prove God's existance, you know this, so why go through this again? If your goal is to win, you can say you've done it.
On some level, I agree based on my Kierkegaardian background. Then again, I do see proof of a spiritual claim and evidence that the spiritual claim falls in line with the Christian teachings.
There have been multiple Eucharist miracles that have defied scientific explanation. By definition, this is a spiritual/paranormal occurrence.
The Atheist claim is that there is no spirit, no divinity, and so the atheist is proven wrong by the existence of paranormal activity seen in the Eucharist miracles.
Niccolò: Assuming the Christian God, He is the absolute authority of morality, He created morality and so if He desires, anything He does is moral.
When you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
Niccolò:Then again, I do see proof of a spiritual claim and evidence that the spiritual claim falls in line with the Christian teachings.
First, your avatar creeps me out. I'm really looking forward to that movie coming out this weekend though.
I'd like to see an explanation of the spiritual claim, as I'm not familiar with it. When I say prove, I meant prove it in a scientific type of way, with a repeatable and independently verifiable experiment.
Stolz2525: Niccolò:Then again, I do see proof of a spiritual claim and evidence that the spiritual claim falls in line with the Christian teachings. First, your avatar creeps me out. I'm really looking forward to that movie coming out this weekend though. I'd like to see an explanation of the spiritual claim, as I'm not familiar with it. When I say prove, I meant prove it in a scientific type of way, with a repeatable and independently verifiable experiment.
Haha. Yeah, I'm going on Monday to the IMAX showing.
As for the proof of spiritual activity, I usually point to the Eucharist mircale in Lanciano, IT, where for 12 centuries a real Eucharist miracle has remained relatively fresh without a controlled environment and without preservatives.
It was tested in the 70's and several conclusions were made from it. Even today, you can go to the Basilica and see the phenomena, it is very real and very paranormal.
To me, the paranormal is a proof of the spiritual, and though it is not a proof of the Christian God Himself, it is circumstantial evidence for His existence.
Niccolò:As for the proof of spiritual activity, I usually point to the Eucharist mircale in Lanciano, IT, where for 12 centuries a real Eucharist miracle has remained relatively fresh without a controlled environment and without preservatives. It was tested in the 70's and several conclusions were made from it. Even today, you can go to the Basilica and see the phenomena, it is very real and very paranormal. To me, the paranormal is a proof of the spiritual, and though it is not a proof of the Christian God Himself, it is circumstantial evidence for His existence.
Definite evidence that the Christian God is icky. I mean, a human (Jesus'!) heart and blood?!? That, or it's a message from the Aztec gods. You are supposed to eat and drink that stuff, after all. Fun guys, those Aztecs. Knew how to party with their bloodthirsty demonic deities.
majevska: I'd like to hear some Christians chime in on this without dodging the question. Do you think it's moral to punish the children for the parents' sin, "to the third and fourth generation." What about if the "sin" is simply rejection, something we don't normally consider a "sin" in the context of human beings.
I'm an atheist. I'm too lazy to call myself agnostic because I see so much evidence pointing in my direction, I don't want to waste the time.
Isn't funny that if someone sees flying purple elephants with Uzies, they are called crazy, but when someone sees god, it is completely fine and even defended as logical?
God is nothing but a made up fiction from man to give a life devoid of meaning, a meaning. God is a creation of man. If the fact that almost all gods look similar to man is not enough evidence, consider space aliens. They look very similar to us in all media, or they are lizards, another Earth creature. No one ever seen a space alien that looked like the monster from Alien the movie when they were "abducted". Man is a very lonely creature with no one superior or on par with his intellectual capacity, so he created one, to live with hope of a "divine plan", or "better Life", instead of recognizing himself as no different than a fly. God was the first, and will be the last "anti- depressant" for man's loneliness.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
banned: Aww, what a crummy guy that God is for letting people have free will.
Aww, what a crummy guy that God is for letting people have free will.
Indeed, he/she/it could have created us as his devout slaves so he/she/it would have to care for all our issues. Now that would be a great god of the free:-)
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
That is a nice way to look at it. I will start to think that through, makes a lot of sense in the first place :-)
JCFolsom: You are supposed to eat and drink that stuff, after all. Fun guys, those Aztecs. Knew how to party with their bloodthirsty demonic deities.
You are supposed to eat and drink that stuff, after all. Fun guys, those Aztecs. Knew how to party with their bloodthirsty demonic deities.
The documentary _The God Who Wasn't There_ goes into this. I don't remember the exact quotes, it's something like:
The Singing Jesus (Jesus Christ Superstar) $50M
The Lusty Jesus (The Last Temptation of Christ) $150M
The Seriously Bloody Jesus (The Passion of the Christ) $450M
People _really_ love blood. Golf or Football? Football! Gladiators! Ultimate Fight Champion! Bullfighting!
It crosses time, cultures and the entire globe. In some ways, humans are seriously nasty.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now I know the standard routine for the rebuttal: forget that god is either omniscient or created everything and say we have free will because....we have free will! Brilliant! Be dishonest--that's the ticket.
banned:Straw man...
False. I've seen it WAY too many times. It always ends up with the theist implicitly denying that god knows everything or that god created everything. Why? Because that's the only way to get free will with an omnimax god. Of course, if the god isn't omnimax, or at least omniscient and created everything, it could be solved. But I've yet to come across any such claims.
banned:Free will is based on experienceing time within space-time.
Oh you're not going to beg the question that there is existence apart from spacetime, are you? Please tell me you're not going to use a fallacy. That would destroy your argument.
banned:Humans are active observers within the realm of time. The future is not known, it is radically uncertain. That is how choice arises, it is unknown until it is known. If man existed in a realm outside space-time, free choice would not be observable. The nature of all choices would already be known.
If man existed in a realm outside space-time, free choice would not be observable. The nature of all choices would already be known.
Which is precisely what causes there to not be free will with a minumim of an omniscient creator being.
Knight_of_BAAWA:1. Sure you can. It's called "for the sake of argument". I'm sure you've heard of that concept before.
banned:Yeah it's used in reductio, to play devil's advocate, etc. but people don't usually say "for the sake of argument, I will contradict my premise, but still apply my premise".
Actually, they aren't contradicting their own premise. They're setting aside their premise, just as what "for the sake of argument" implies.
banned:What you're saying is that it's okay to say "I reject the Lord exists but his laws (which must not exist if the Lord doesn't exist) are non-existantly inhumane"
Wrong. What we're saying is that if there is a god, and these are the laws, then the laws are pretty horrid.
IOW: for the sake of argument.
But you knew that already.
Knight_of_BAAWA:2. So you admit that you think an injustice is perfectly fine if god does it. Good to know that you have a double-standard.
banned:Right, because metaethics and Divine Command Theory don't mix.
No, they don't. Not unless you want to special plead. Do you want to?
Knight_of_BAAWA:because....we have free will! Brilliant! Be dishonest--that's the ticket.
CurtHowland:I don't think they're being dishonest.
Compartmentalization is just being dishonest with one's self.
Niccolò:If the LORD is the ultimate decider and standard setter for morality
Have you ever heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma? You're about to step into it, and I don't think you want to.
Stolz2525:You're posing these questions assuming your definition of moral similar to when you ask for the definition of God.
That's just a flowery way of saying "I'm going to evade the question".
Y'all do realize, right, that the argument from evil is actually an argument for dystheism, not atheism, right? I admit a certain level of sympathy for this. If I believed the Christian Mythos were true, then depending on its degree of truth I'd either have to be a Gnostic or a straight-up Satanist.
As for the Aztec thing, yes, humans love blood. Yes, every religion has been into human sacrifice, but in all the histories we know of, only the Aztecs would actually go to war with other kingdoms for no reason other than to get more sacrificial victims. Their rulers also put themselves through grisly tortures for one reason or another. BLOODTHIRSTY DEMON GODS, man. Rock on!
JCFolsom:Y'all do realize, right, that the argument from evil is actually an argument for dystheism, not atheism, right?
Which is why I go with theological noncognitivism.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Compartmentalization is just being dishonest with one's self.
If you ever figure out how to cure that, you will have solved one of the mysteries of the ages.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Niccolò:If the LORD is the ultimate decider and standard setter for morality Have you ever heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma? You're about to step into it, and I don't think you want to.
Yes, I've been educated in the classics and I'm familiar with the "dilemma."
I do not think, however, that it is a dilemma. I have no problem with admitting that the omnibenevolence of the LORD is tautological - i.e. necessarily true.
I'm perfectly fine with accepting the consequences of the second part of the "dilemma."
Knight_of_BAAWA:Have you ever heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma? You're about to step into it, and I don't think you want to.
Niccolò:Yes, I've been educated in the classics and I'm familiar with the "dilemma."
Then you know that you either have whim-based morality with god, or you have no need for god for morality.
Niccolò:I do not think, however, that it is a dilemma. I have no problem with admitting that the omnibenevolence of the LORD is tautological - i.e. necessarily true.
That would fly in the face of reality.
nhaag: banned: Aww, what a crummy guy that God is for letting people have free will. Indeed, he/she/it could have created us as his devout slaves so he/she/it would have to care for all our issues. Now that would be a great god of the free:-)
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you know that you either have whim-based morality with god, or you have no need for god for morality.
I would not call it a "whim based" I would call it an acceptance based morality of the LORD and His divinity. I am not interested in running away from what is and I understand I have no place to question the morality set forth by a LORD that represents all moral truth.
And how is that?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you know that you either have whim-based morality with god, or you have no need for god for morality.
Niccolò:I would not call it a "whim based"
I and every other non-apologist philosopher would. It means that morality is a subjective dynamic based upon whatever god says. The recent attempt of claiming that it is part of "god's nature" is just so much running from the issue.
Niccolò:I would call it an acceptance based morality of the LORD and His divinity.
IOW: might makes right, which is no different from the statist belief.
Knight of BAAWA:That would fly in the face of reality.
Niccolò:And how is that?
If god is omnibenevolent, then clearly no suffering should happen. But it does. And you can't attempt to re-define omnibenevolent to include suffering because that's dishonest.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If god is omnibenevolent, then clearly no suffering should happen. But it does. And you can't attempt to re-define omnibenevolent to include suffering because that's dishonest.
Because the happiest people, the best and most wonderful people, are those who never suffer? Because a person, even in some theoretical ideal circumstance, will be perfectly happy all the time? You know what's best, eh? Thbbbt.
JCFolsom:Because
omnibenevolence requires that no suffering happen, yes. Glad you agree.
Oh wait--you were actually trying some crap apologist technique of trying to re-define omnibenevolent, weren't you? How dishonest.
Knight_of_BAAWA: majevska:Do you think it's moral to punish the children for the parents' sin, "to the third and fourth generation." Stolz2525:You're posing these questions assuming your definition of moral similar to when you ask for the definition of God. That's just a flowery way of saying "I'm going to evade the question".
Well at least I was flowery, eh? Seriously though, in order to answer that question, I have to know if we are using the same definition of moral, which is almost certainly not the case, since I believe our morality stems from God, not vice versa. I should probably have put a semicolon or period in there.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I and every other non-apologist philosopher would. It means that morality is a subjective dynamic based upon whatever god says. The recent attempt of claiming that it is part of "god's nature" is just so much running from the issue.
That doesn't seem subjective at all... Talk about redefining things!
Subjective is something that applies on an individual basis. God applies objectively.
No, not at all. It is not might, it is the definition of morality. There is no fight involved and this is what you fail to understand. That God makes morality is not an issue of, "because He said so," it's just an issueof what is.
A. God allows for free choice and is mostly laissez-faire about human activites on this Earth. He is not responsible for your actions and it is why you will be held accountable for them.
B. Benevolent means whatever the LORD says is moral. If the LORD commanded every child be murdered in the most gruesome of ways - though of course He would not do this - then it would be moral and thus benevolent.
I do not question the LORD because I know it is not my place. The LORD is above me and if He commanded me to do something that you would truly consider terrible, I would not hesitate. I am willing to give my life to God's will.
Knight_of_BAAWA:omnibenevolence requires that no suffering happen
So, you would rather not exist than exist? Every human suffers; it is part of being human. The desire to be without suffering is the desire to be other than human, thus to not be yourself. Would you have truly come to be the person you are today without suffering? If you like the way you shaped up (I don't see why YOU would, but still) than you should be grateful for the suffering that helped make you so.
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's just a flowery way of saying "I'm going to evade the question".
Stolz2525:Well at least I was flowery, eh? Seriously though, in order to answer that question, I have to know if we are using the same definition of moral,
That's just a stalling tactic.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I and every other non-apologist philosopher would. It means that morality is a subjective dynamic based upon whatever god says. The recent attempt of claiming that it is part of "god's nature" is just so much running from the issue.
Niccolò:That doesn't seem subjective at all
Of course it does. Talk about redefining things!
Niccolò:Subjective is something that applies on an individual basis. God applies objectively.
And yet it's subjective from god's view, because it's whatever god wants. Ergo, subjective.
Talk about redefining things!
Knight of BAAWA:IOW: might makes right, which is no different from the statist belief.
Niccolò:No, not at all.
Sure is. Whatever god says is right because god is mighty. That's the reason behind it. That you are deluding yourself into believing otherwise isn't my problem.
Knight of BAAWA:If god is omnibenevolent, then clearly no suffering should happen. But it does. And you can't attempt to re-define omnibenevolent to include suffering because that's dishonest.
Niccolò:A. God allows for free choice
Not possible with the christian god. At least the calvinists have this one right: free will is impossible with the christian god.
Niccolò:B. Benevolent means whatever the LORD says is moral.
Talk about redefining terms!
Niccolò:If the LORD commanded every child be murdered in the most gruesome of ways - though of course He would not do this
Yet the bible says god did.
Niccolò:I do not question the LORD because I know it is not my place. The LORD is above me and if He commanded me to do something that you would truly consider terrible, I would not hesitate. I am willing to give my life to God's will.
Funny: a lot of statists say that same thing about the state. Further, you would murder if god says so? That indicts YOU as the immoral one.
JCFolsom:So, you would rather not exist than exist?
That's nicely irrelevant. Did you have something that addressed my point about omnibenevolence? No? Ok then.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not possible with the christian god. At least the calvinists have this one right: free will is impossible with the christian god.
You really don't understand pre-destination do you?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Further, you would murder if god says so? That indicts YOU as the immoral one.
To my understanding, Divine command theory goes like this:
If God were to say you should murder, murder would be moral and logically ethical.
However God has not said it is okay to murder, hence, any logical justification for murder does not exist.
You're argument seems to suggest you think the Christian God is simply a guy with subjective whims, instead of an entity encasing all objectivity, existance, and truth.
Knight of Bowow, seriously, dude, you need to stop with the selective quoting and constant abraisiveness. You're making Niccolo look calm and friendly, for God's sake. Geez.
banned:You really don't understand pre-destination do you?
Rather, I do.
banned:To my understanding, Divine command theory goes like this: If God were to say you should murder, murder would be moral and logically ethical.
Which then means that whatever god says is moral is moral. Hence: subjective dynamic based upon the whim of god, i.e. might makes right. Further, anyone who actually would murder because god says it's ok is clearly suffering from severe problems.
banned:However God has not said it is okay to murder
If you're speaking from a judeo-christian perspective, you're wrong. Many times in the bible god commanded murders.