|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Movie: "God on Trial" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
iano writes: There is no right answer involved I think you know that in the context of my statement the "right answer" is the answer God prefers. He may allow us to choose, but He would rather we choose Him, right? So I would still like an answer. Are you saying that God intentionally set it up so that we can't know the real consequences of our choice, because to not do so would be to make it no choice at all, the answer that God prefers being the obvious choice?
What other repercussions are there? So, due to whatever set of circumstances (blame it on Adam/us if you want), we have to make a choice, and one choice leads to eternal torment. That's bad, but not too bad, because not many people will choose eternal torment, for obvious reasons. Then, God steps in and makes it much more likely that billions of people WILL choose eternal torment. This makes God evil. That's quite a repercussion, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where does a God who is furious wrath against sin fit into this picture of a benevolent and omnipotent God? Well, it doesn't. Slaying the sinful isn't benevolent, it's malevolent, since all men are sinners. But if you believe in a God who wants to kill everyone, that's similarly indefensible - God cannot be omnipotent and malevolent, since men continue to live.
So, what's the problem with God slaying those who sin Well, I guess one problem would be that he doesn't. Many who do great evil enjoy long and prosperous lives. If you believe in a different God than the one the theodicy argument is meant to attack, I guess that's a very clever dodge, but your God has its own logical weaknesses. I'm not sure they're on topic in this thread, however; the God on trial in "God on Trial" is benevolent and omnipotent, as traditionally conceived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Aware Wolf writes: I think you know that in the context of my statement the "right answer" is the answer God prefers. He may allow us to choose, but He would rather we choose Him, right? There would be two tiers of desire involved. Tier 1 is God's desire that we would chose what it is we want. Tier 2 would be God's desire that we choose him. Tier 1 receives priority Whilst agreeing that God would prefer we choose him, the set up of the choice would focus on ensuring tier 1 operates -
So I would still like an answer. Are you saying that God intentionally set it up so that we can't know the real consequences of our choice, because to not do so would be to make it no choice at all, the answer that God prefers being the obvious choice? Does the above illuminate? The answer that God prefers isn't relevant to the choice offered. -
So, due to whatever set of circumstances (blame it on Adam/us if you want), we have to make a choice, and one choice leads to eternal torment. That's bad, but not too bad Why is it bad? What isn't revealed at the outset is the fullest consequences for either choice. But consequences are revealed in part in this life. Our choices for evil bring with them negatives (eg: a guilty conscience) and our choices for good bring with them positives (eg: a clear conscience). What does it matter that the fullest of consequences in both directions aren't fully revealed so long as there is a balance offered in the choice offered. Given tier 1 desire, that we make a choice, a choice ending in Hell is as satisfactory to God as is a choice for Heaven. And it should be satisfactory to us to - given that it was balanced and we made it. I wouldn't let the fact of the consequences detract from the uppermost concern - that our will be done. How can someone find their will being done bad?
, because not many people will choose eternal torment, for obvious reasons. Then, God steps in and makes it much more likely that billions of people WILL choose eternal torment. This makes God evil. That's quite a repercussion, I think. How does God make it more likely if the choice is balanced in both directions. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: Where does a God who is furious wrath against sin fit into this picture of a benevolent and omnipotent God?
Crashfrog writes: Well, it doesn't. A least that strawgod has been put to bed -
Slaying the sinful isn't benevolent, it's malevolent, since all men are sinners. I wouldn't say slaying sinners is benevolent, I'd say it's just. We might disagree on the level of response to wrongdoing but I'm sure we agree that wrongdoing should attract sanction I'm not sure I see any argument allowing me to conclude malevolent here. All that all men being sinners tells us is that all men are deserving of sanction Not that that means a man put to death is a man condemned to Hell btw. -
But if you believe in a God who wants to kill everyone, that's similarly indefensible - God cannot be omnipotent and malevolent, since men continue to live. God does kill everyone at some point (by omission or commission) but that's probably not what you meant. I don't believe God wants to kill everyone (in the way he wiped out with the flood for example). -
So, what's the problem with God slaying those who sin
Well, I guess one problem would be that he doesn't. Many who do great evil enjoy long and prosperous lives. I meant it in the just-ness sense. All are worthy of it - whether it fits Gods purposes to take them out of the game now or later notwithstanding. Myself, I can't see a whole lot of difference between living 20 years > Hell and 4 score years > Hell.
If you believe in a different God than the one the theodicy argument is meant to attack, I guess that's a very clever dodge, but your God has its own logical weaknesses. I'm not sure they're on topic in this thread, however; the God on trial in "God on Trial" is benevolent and omnipotent, as traditionally conceived. Fair enough - although I'm not quite sure how anyone could overlook the wrath of the biblical God. Perhaps omni-benevolence is as limited as omni-potence - it can do all that can be done in it's own department but cannot do the logically impossible. For example: making square circles or being merciful to those who refuse mercy. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Panda writes: You missed a bit: Enable: 2. to make possible. Make. A verb incidcating "positive activity unto". Activity rather than passivity. And so..
Murdering innocents is made possible by your god deciding to not intervene. And if, as the ultimate authority, he chooses not to sustain the life of an innocent, then he is authorising their death. Your god allows, condones, permits, helps, authorises and enables innocents to be murdered; millions of innocents. Allows - checkCondones - uncheck Permits - check Helps - uncheck Authorises - uncheck Enables - uncheck I think the division between "positive assist" and "not preventing" is clear enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Granny Magda writes: Again you pretend that you have no idea what I am talking about; Again you presume your case made without so much a lifting a finger to make it. -
quote: Regardless of the Christian defences against the clear anti-Semitism in this passage (and others), it is ludicrous for you to act as though you cannot conceive why Jews would be dismissive of Christianity. The Blood Libel is perfectly sufficient reason for Jews to abominate the NT. I'm not sure I understand your argument. If this is an accurate report of what took place then there is nothing anti-semitic about it. If you're suggesting it isn't accurate reporting and that words are put in mouths then you need to support that position - since the anti-semitic claim is made by you. There is no Christian defence presented as such. Just a Christian awaiting a prosecution case. -
God supposedly gave this gift with no conditions. We cannot be said to have agreed to any conditions or stipulations at the time of our birth. He then imposes conditions upon us after the fact. Further, he seems to have made sure that his one true route to heaven is indistinguishable from myths, campfire tales and lies. This is not a true gift. This is not a fair contract. It is merely slavery. To unravel: 1) God placed conditions "don't eat or else" 2) God doesn't have to ask our permission to set conditions. He owns us and can set any condition he likes. 3) His one true route isn't in any way affected by the fact that blind men can't see it. You see, it's his job to save us, not ours. -
Judge yourself Iano, not me. I would have no fear of standing before any just tribunal, since I do not believe that I practice evil. If measuring yourself according to the Biblical standard? Surely not!
I would not place myself before judgement by your god though, because he has roved himself a moral imbecile and a cruel, vindictive monster. As if that alters anything.
Oh and by the way, how pathetic that you bring up my alleged "sins" in comparison with the fucking Holocaust! Yes, I would wish to be judged and extirpated before I went so far as to commit genocide. As it goes, I don't have any genocidal ambitions right now, but should I ever become a genocidal maniac, then yes, I would hope that God would stop me. Yet you wouldn't hope God stops you committing the sins you'll commit today. Wherein the problem perhaps: your less that complete appreciation of holiness. So let me illustrate: as far as God is concerned, you and Hitler are like two grains of sand on the beach with you pointing out that you're ever so much closer to the moon (if closeness to it reflected your level of goodness) than Hitler. You might not like it but that's the position. -
No, that's not true. Some people are capable of desisting from a course of action because it simply isn't right. Not everyone shares the primitive and selfish attitude that you describe. Certainly I would hope that God would be above that sort of pettiness. Start cranking up the desire level until the "simply not right" restraint is overcome. I'm not saying there aren't other things that will stop us doing wrong, I'm saying that the buck stops, if it is ever going to stop, at suffering. -
Pretty simple really; everyone gets what they want. The murderers and paedophiles can simply be killed, in order to protect others. Instead of hell and suffering though, they are given heaven, their own heaven. They would be unable to hurt others, but God would not need to stoop to the base practice of punitive measures. But God wants to punish wrongdoing. It's a function of holiness - something which he cannot change about himself. Solutions that involve God making square circles and the like aren't solutions. Punishment satisfies Gods wrath and it is his satisfaction that should be uppermost in your mind. -
Or, if you insist on punishment, God could make Hell a temporary sentence. He could then practice a little of what he preaches; forgiveness, a concept that seems to have been absent from previous Christian imaginings of the afterlife. To forgive means to pay the cost of the offence yourself. God offers to do that in Christ. If that is rejected then there is no need to revisit it. To do so would be to discount a persons sovereign choice: the one they have already made. -
He is an omnipotent, or at least awesomely powerful, deity. The fact that he apparently cannot be bothered to thin up a better way is utterly damning. The Bible exhorts his power and capabilities at great length, but he can't think of a better solution than eternal punishment for failure to adhere to a set of arbitrary and obscure rules? That simply makes no sense. The rules aren't either arbitrary or obscure. Everyone ever born has a conscience (a knowledge of good and evil). And everyone ever born has access to the exact same set of rules. I'd note that we are eternal creatures, living in a bubble within an eternal realm, who sin against other eternal creatures and an eternal God. What basis is there for supposing punishment being carried out in any other currency? -
No end could justify the suffering visited upon the victims of the Holocaust. in arguing that such a thing could serve a greater good, you are lowering yourself to a state of moral debasement. Gods intention for man is that man become children of God. Of like order. That is lofty intent indeed. One aspect of that is the primacy of personhood (hence God's dim view on a person taking anothers life). It's a sign of the heights a person can be lifted to that they can be allowed to sink into such depravity. -
You are projecting. I do not desire independence from your imaginary friends. I am already independent from that which has no sign of existing. You would agree that your belief wouldn't alter things if they are indeed true? -
Neither you nor that snippet of film (insofar as it is commandeered to condemn the biblical God) make any mention of that.
God, how dense are you? That's because the film is about Jews. To criticise it for not offering Christian theology is moronic. If the film did that, and the characters found Jesus, it would be horrifically offensive. Did you notice my saying "in so far as it is commandeered.." If you take the arguments as they are applied to the Jewish god in the film and criticise the biblical God with same then you're at crossed purposes. You're mixing up your gods. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
But God wants to punish wrongdoing. It's a function of holiness - something which he cannot change about himself. Really? Are you sure about that? Are all omnipotent creator gods naturally holy, or did we just luck into ours being that way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
iano writes:
Condones: to allow, accept or permit. Check. Allows - checkCondones - uncheck Permits - check Helps - uncheck Authorises - uncheck Enables - uncheck Permits: Check. Helps: condoning an action is helping*. Check. Authorises: to grant clearance for. Check. Enables: to make possible. Without god, nothing is possible. Check. I see that you are still too scared to discuss your god murdering babies during the holocaust.That says as much about you as it does about your god. Clearly you have no argument, else you would be posting it with the same glibness with which you claim that genocide is deserved. *e.g. I helped my nephew learn to ride a bike by not holding the bike upright.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Condones: to allow, accept or permit. Check. Permits: Check. Helps: condoning an action is helping*. Check. Authorises: to grant clearance for. Check. Enables: to make possible. Without god, nothing is possible. Check Okay, Okay! God enables murder in the non-contributory sense of the word. He doesn't enable in the positive contributory sense of the word. And?
I see that you are still too scared to discuss your god murdering babies during the holocaust. That says as much about you as it does about your god. Clearly you have no argument, else you would be posting it with the same glibness with which you claim that genocide is deserved. It's a matter of focus. Infants and idiots are usually wheeled out to circumvent the justness of sin (i.e. your sin) being punished. If we ever get around to agreement on that issue then by all means we can have a look a babies and idiots. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
iano writes: So I would still like an answer. Are you saying that God intentionally set it up so that we can't know the real consequences of our choice, because to not do so would be to make it no choice at all, the answer that God prefers being the obvious choice? Does the above illuminate? The answer that God prefers isn't relevant to the choice offered. Not really; your sort of dancing around the question. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. The statement you made back in post 39:
The trouble is that as a blind person (or so the theology goes) you cannot believe in the consequences that will follow in order to be motivated this way or that in your choosing. Besides, what kind of choice would it be to be presented with eternal torment or eternal bliss (although I'm sure theres some or other braveheart out there who'd be dumb enougn.. )
sounded like you were saying that God does not want us to fully understand the repercussions of our choice, because that would make it essentially no choice at all. That idea kind of blew me away, so I've been trying ever since to find out if you believe that God has intentionally set up the circumstance so that we don't fully understand the repercussions; one of which, lest we forget, is the unimaginably inhumane eternal torment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Aware Wolf writes: sounded like you were saying that God does not want us to fully understand the repercussions of our choice, because that would make it essentially no choice at all. That idea kind of blew me away, so I've been trying ever since to find out if you believe that God has intentionally set up the circumstance so that we don't fully understand the repercussions; one of which, lest we forget, is the unimaginably inhumane eternal torment. The first half of what you quote sees me state a theological position. Man blind = he cannot see in order to evaluate. That blindness stems from the Fall so any choice set up by God subsequent to that needs to take account of mans blindness. It's not so much intentional as necessitated - given the situation 'as God finds it'. As it happens, the part-veiling of the consequences of choice (positive and negative) results in it being an (arguably) balanced choice. If more knowledge of repercussions was to be given then he'd have to have ensured that didn't skew the balanced nature of the choice. I'm inclined to assume God, in working with the situation as he found it post-Fall, intended that there be balance .. above all else. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
iano writes: I'm inclined to assume God, in working with the situation as he found it post-Fall, intended that there be balance .. above all else. Well, to that, what else can I say but "holey f'ing crap"? One thing's for sure: whatever God's moral philosophy is, it certainly isn't utilitarian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Aware Wolf writes: One thing's for sure: whatever God's moral philosophy is, it certainly isn't utilitarian. I dunno. To the degree you strip away a free choice you reduce our humanity. Perhaps the free-est of choices x only 10% people saved gives a greater overall happiness level than a-less-free-choice x 50% saved - the latter folks humanity having been diluted in qualitative worth in the process. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
There's a couple of ways I could go with this. For one, it seems very twisted to say that the situation where information is witheld from the chooser results in a more free choice.
For two, and I guess this is more opinion than cold hard logic: limiting, or even eliminating, free choice is easily justified by keeping the chooser from an eternity of suffering. It's not even close. Edited by Aware Wolf, : Clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
iano writes: He owns us and can set any condition he likes. This is your justification for every nasty thing your god does to us, isn't it? He made us so he can do what ever he wants with us and we should not criticise becuase we are only here because of him so we should be greatful for what ever crumbs of happiness we can claw together before your god puts us out of our misery to make a point to somebody else. Sorry about the sentence length.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024