God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist 160 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AllTimeJeff

  BTS

  I still maintain that the burden of proof is on your theistic assertions, but before I get to them....

  You miss the point AllTimeJeff. We only know how we would act in a given situation.

  I agree. Really. In fact, history shows this to be the only frame of reference, how we humans tend to act in a given situation. What will god do? Before we get there, we must examine history and ask "What has god done?" To date, not one single thing. There is no evidence that he has.

  The only evidence that argues for "bible god"'s existence are those that argue for "bible god's" existence. Many assertions, but zero evidence.

  As to how the above statement relates to standards of behavior, the very fact that behavioral standards are subjective also means that they do not argue for the rightness of Christian theistic standards. (which I still maintain is Perry's argument, very clearly. It's not about ANY standard, but his fundamentalist Christian POV that he is arguing for)

  For example, if two men see a robbery in progress, and they vary among themselves in power, goodness and knowledge, it is reasonable to surmise that they will act differently. Let's assume equal power and goodness between the two characters but a variance in knowledge. The first man might know that he can easily wrestle the armed robber to the ground and defuse the threat. The second might know the same, but he also knows that the robber has a semtex belt and would choose to self detonate if he is physically restrained. The first man would take action, and the second would not.

  Ok. Great. I know analogies are frequently used by Christian theists of all stripes, and they can provide a limited road to discuss these types of issues. But it would be nice if Christian theists didn't have to depend on analogies so much. It turns the argument into an "apples v oranges" scenario. The other possibility is that there really isn't a rational way to explain god's behavior in that he demands what he himself does not do. That conclusion, supported by the evidence, needs zero analogies.

  You cannot see to the end of time and see all the outcomes and effects of an action as it propagates down the chains of causality through time. An omniscient God existing outside of Time would. How do you know that this world is not the best of all possible worlds? As soon as there are beings possessed of the will to choose good or evil, there is the possibility of evil. Over a long enough period of time, evil is a certainty. Perhaps this is the best that things can be, because even an omnipotent God cannot commit a logical impossibility.

  My point is that we cannot know how an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act without being all these things ourselves. How does such a being respond to a human evil? How does he balance justice with allowing humans free will? We cannot know that a OOO being would prevent such evils as you mention, we cannot even know the probability of such an action. Only human hubris could assume to know such a thing.

  If this is what you believe, more power to you. However, I find it ironic that you will argue for the existence of a god that we cannot see, who hasn't acted on behalf of his creation, yet maintain with 100% certainty that he does exist, and at the same time say that it is impossible for us to know him, or even the probability of how he might act in terms of suffering and/or punishment??

  So you maintain that we know

  • God exists.
  • He is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being, who can come in and out of time.
  • He will punish those who disagree with him or break his standards in the use of their free will
  • He cares about all who are suffering
  • He hasn't solved suffering yet, but we shouldn't hold this against him, because even though we can know with certainty that he exists, we are less certain as to why he allows suffering, even though he created all things and has the power and love to end suffering. We should merely accept that he has his reasons.
  • His use of "justice" is tempered by the exercise of mans free will. In his justice, he created us to crave things he disapproves of, and will destroy us. (you might remember your clip from the Devils Advocate. I agree with Al Pacino)
  • It is human hubris to believe that we can judge god, even by his own standards.

  That looks pretty bad when it is in black and white.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  !!!!
• 

  hamilcarr

  Sure, it's contrary to nature not to live up to any standard (cf. previous posts).

  Can you provide a clear example of this? Because in every culture I've ever looked at, they were full of people who occasionally failed to live up to various standards, hence the saying..."That's just human nature". For most people, they just accept as an observable fact the opposite of what you seem to assert.

  Are you sure you have an example of this? This seems wildly off base.

  Wildly off base? Maybe, I won't deny I'm a stubborn optimist. But still I think the ratio of these people who occasionally ... has steadily been declining over the centuries. So, it must be "human nature" to be moral, it's the only way to survive as a species.

  Example: prisoner's dilemma.

  That sounds fine, but it depends in a large way on what justice is.

  The words of a relativist
• 

  BurnTheShips

  AllTimeJeff, your accusations against God on this thread are framed on the assumption that he exists. Otherwise, why accuse him? My responses rest on the same assumption. That he exists. It isn't really fair for you to then turn to question that premise, as it is a different issue. Basically, for the sake of discussion, lets assume God exists. That he cares about human beings. Also that he is omnipotent and omniscient. Your question encapsulates: How then does suffering exist? Why does God not act immediately?

  He will punish those who disagree with him or break his standards in the use of their free will

  I don't believe God punishes. He has no need.

  He hasn't solved suffering...we are less certain as to why he allows suffering

  Suffering is the nature of our state of existence. He allows suffering because he respects our choices. Also that any temporal evil we suffer is not beyond ultimate resolution. We are small children crying over our booboos. The parents smile and know this will pass and that the scrape will heal.

  In his justice, he created us to crave things he disapproves of

  Part of the craving is due to our fallen natures. The other is intrinsic to the ability to choose one thing or another. If I choose good, I must also be able to choose evil, otherwise there is no choice.

  It is human hubris to believe that we can judge god, even by his own standards.

  We can judge God by his own standards, but that does not mean we know all the factors implicit in what he does. I see you shoot someone, and I can judge it a murder or a justifiable killing based on what I know regarding the shooting. If I don't know anything other than the bare fact that you shot someone, that does not constitute enough information for me to make a judgement. We are not privy to what God knows, therefore, it is foolish to think we can correctly judge his choices.

  BTW, my analogy is a valid one, despite your dismissal. Two individuals of equal power and benevolence will act differently under a set of circumstances based on what they know. Neither of us knows what God knows.

  BTS
• 

  Perry

  Jeff,

  You are making this way harder on yourself than it need be. So, to make it easier, I've just cut out the parts that are relevant. Your replies are in yellow.

  J eff, the question was, "can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong?"

  I think the answer is YES. This is proven by the amount of governments that have basic standards of right and wrong. Speaking for myself, I believe I live up to a proper standard of law, of right and wrong....

  That is not an answer to my question nor is it support in any way to your assertion.

  And I will call you out. Do you want to discuss ANY standard

  Yes I do. I have asked you several times.

  What is the point of "exactly"? Why is "exactly" the point at all? I reject your premise. This equates mistakes, or even personal decisions, as sinful. By whose standard?

  If there is no "exactly", there is no "sin".

  Ok. I think this is your main point. You don't like the word "standard" used in the sense where failure would be possible. You seem to think that if you can play with the definition of words, you can avoid failure. I am not impressed. So, when YOU claimed that man could live up to ANY (just one) standard of right or wrong, (becasue that is what you said), what you really meant to say is that man has the right to choose "each for himself" what is right and wrong". That is just anarchy.

  So you have proven my point. You cannot come up with even ONE standard of right and wrong that man can keep as you clearly claimed. So, it follows that if man makes punishable laws like, lying (under oath) should not God punish those that judge others but then go ahead and violate this law themselves? This would seem to be the height of hypocrisy to exercise this punishble law and then turn around and say God is unjust for punishing liars wouldn't you say?
• 

  Perry

  we can judge how and omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act.

  Like the way a small child can tell how his parent should act? My two year old cries his heart out when we try to limit his sugar. He is in my image. From his point of view, I am no doubt a tyrant.

  Your reasoning seems extremely arrogant.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  BTS

  When talking in generalities for the sake of discussion, I apologize if I lumped your personal beliefs and understandings under a label that didn't fit. I happily acknowledge the variety of beliefs in theists and atheists alike. (or even agnostics like me....)

  AllTimeJeff, your accusations against God on this thread are framed on the assumption that he exists. Otherwise, why accuse him? My responses rest on the same assumption. That he exists. It isn't really fair for you to then turn to question that premise, as it is a different issue. Basically, for the sake of discussion, lets assume God exists. That he cares about human beings. Also that he is omnipotent and omniscient. Your question encapsulates: How then does suffering exist? Why does God not act immediately?

  I am glad you brought this up. For the record, (with all respect to you) by arguing against "god" in this way, I am obviously arguing against how "god" is portrayed. It also allows me to bring out inconsistencies in theistic reasoning. While this may or may not apply to you, there are many who would use the "rightness of their righteousness" and try to apply their standards of right and wrong to others. In this context, the argument about god's alleged existence is fair game, as it is frequently used as the reason why all must accept a certain point of view, even if one chooses personally not to believe or act as Christian theists would have them.

  One can reject god as he is traditionally understood by Christians on multiple levels. One OR both is sufficient, and not mutually exclusive.

  • That he does not exist
  • That he is not worthy of worship as the source materials portray him.

  One thing is for sure, he isn't around now. (metaphysical assertions aside)

  While it is a different issue, it isn't totally separate, but instead, very related. However, as you bring out, one can only assume that god exists and that he cares. That he is omnipotent and omniscient. Assuming is the best theists can do. There is no evidence, only assertions.

  To put a finer line on it, and as I brought out earlier with my example of James 1 and taking care of orphans and widows, the standards that are offered as coming from god have yet to be followed by god. Would that not make a difference in the acceptance of these standards and their validity? That doesn't make me want to worship god or follow such a standard. Whether the reason is that he either doesn't exist or doesn't follow his own rules is immaterial.

  To talk about standards, as this thread started with, is to question their source. To question their source is completely valid. It isn't necessary to assume anything. Look at the claims of Christians, look at the source material from which the theology comes, see what is provable, what isn't, what the evidence shows, and draw your conclusions.

  I think it a totally different subject to discuss spirituality in the context of standards. I am not arguing that their isn't a reason why man perceives good and evil, right and wrong, justice and the like. However, where I perceive we differ is that I think one should take their personal experience personally, while respecting others experiences and decisions. I perceive that you would try to frame this in the context of what you said: Basically, for the sake of discussion, lets assume God exists. That he cares about human beings. Also that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

  I can't make that assumption, as in my review of the evidence, there is no good reason to assume any of the above. That doesn't rule a higher being out, nor does it minimize the apparent need man has in its spiritual quest. But I would argue that it limits the possibility of discovery for each of us to lock such a discussion where assumptions are treated as facts. Especially where I perceive a fundamentalist Christian argument, I have to speak up.

  In addition, theists maintain god punishes. So far, only man punishes. Only man asserts. It is all man. Thus far, at best, god has somehow directed holy writings. His involvement in the carrying out of his thoughts have been nil. Where has he been?

  I don't see god in these arguments. I see you BTS. I see Perry. You are the ones making these assertions. God is still silent. His silence is deafening, even if his defenders are as vocal as can be.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  we can judge how and omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act.

  Like the way a small child can tell how his parent should act? My two year old cries his heart out when we try to limit his sugar. He is in my image. From his point of view, I am no doubt a tyrant.

  Your reasoning seems extremely arrogant.

  And your reasoning seems very childish. Children and those who have child like thinking frequently view a more nuanced and mature arguement as arrogant, as it goes against their overly simplistic world view. Oh well. Your analogies do nothing more then defend your right to believe as you wish, it doesn't prove your personal assertions at all. I have no qualms with that. And if by pointing out the very large holes in your arguements, that makes me arrogant, I can live with that.

  Let the record show that you believe in a heretofore derelict, invisible person that no one has seen or heard, whom you believe lives in the invisible heavens, who loves us yet ignores us, who demands we act a certain way under pain of death, even though only his followers up to now have enforced any of "gods" ideas. And by pointing this out, along with alternative and legitimate ways to interpret the human experience, that makes me arrogant?

  I can live with that.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Perry has concluded about my arguements:

  Ok. I think this is your main point. You don't like the word "standard" used in the sense where failure would be possible. You seem to think that if you can play with the definition of words, you can avoid failure. I am not impressed. So, when YOU claimed that man could live up to ANY (just one) standard of right or wrong, (becasue that is what you said), what you really meant to say is that man has the right to choose "each for himself" what is right and wrong". That is just anarchy.

  So you have proven my point. You cannot come up with even ONE standard of right and wrong that man can keep as you clearly claimed. So, it follows that if man makes punishable laws like, lying (under oath) should not God punish those that judge others but then go ahead and violate this law themselves? This would seem to be the height of hypocrisy to exercise this punishble law and then turn around and say God is unjust for punishing liars wouldn't you say?

  For the sake of clarity, I will limit my use of paragraphs. I maintain in all of my posts on this subject that

  • Failure to meet a standard isn't sin. I do not believe in sin. There is no such thing, as it is a religious term used in the context of belief in god. In the absence of belief and evidence of god, there is also an absence of sin.
  • The standards I am talking about are not crimes where another person is harmed, such as murder, assault, rape, theft, etc.
  • The standards I am specifically referring to are fundamentalist Christian beliefs that certain personal behaviours are offensive to god.
  • Whether or not man can keep a "standard" perfectly isn't the point at all. It doesn't matter, nor does it demonstrate the need for "bible god" or Christ. In fact, go ahead and claim a win on this one. I don't care, it doesn't matter if a standard, god ordained or otherwise is perfectly kept. I concede the point. It doesn't matter.
  • I differentiate between theistic standards and civic standards that a study of history shows all civilized societies adopt, regardless of religioius persuasion or sexual mores.

  Perry, lets assume you are correct. What difference would it make? Keeping a standard perfectly or not proves what?
• 

  Perry

  Failure to meet a standard isn't sin.

  Apparently you believe failure to not be failure as well. OK. Forget about the example that I have been asking you for.

  (1) Should God punish liars Jeff?

  (2) Should our courts punish liars?

  Note: These are simple questions. You have already assummed the existence of God for this discussion.