Morality of God

[Tinduriel]

Now when Peregring himself has brought it up I see it apropriate(sp?) to post this.

 

I think hundiman has a point there, that quote in Peregrins signature is out of context and therefor makes Hundiman look bad more than if one would read the whole thread. And only purpose to the sig that I can see is to make him look bad. It isn't good way to debate to make yourself and your arguments look good at the cost of your opponents appearance (couldn't come up with any better word :lol: ). I find it a little odd that a moderator can lower himself to a level where he has to flame others. I mean it's your job to stop that kind of behavior, right?

 

I apologize for a complete off-topic post (but I'd say the debate is over), and any offence towards anyone. Just my 0.02$.

[Peregrine]

It's not out of context. The discussion as it happened in this debate:

 

me: would you sacrifice children?

him: yes

me: even though it's done in the most evil way?

him: yes, and I don't think it's murder either

 

How is that out of context? He admitted that he would do it, and tried to justify it.

 

And you're right I'm trying to make him look bad. I'm making sure there's no chance he can just forget about his confession because few people are going to read this thread. I want it to be very clear where his sense of morality is, and where the morality of his religion is. Religion is his favorite argument to make, I'm making sure he can't pretend that him and his religion are perfect and good.

[Dark0ne]

I've read very little of this thread but find it slightly disturbing. I question whether I should leave you folks to it or not. I will leave you with a quote from Wittgenstein, a leading philosopher in religious language...

 

"Religious Language is a game. You can only play it when you know the rules"

 

Basically put, you, Peregrine, cannot judge the religious people here since you are (1) so biased in one direction that you are unable to give leway and (2) have neither the experience or knowledge a christian has of their god...whether he/she exists or not.

 

I believe all of you are being rude, obnoxious and opressive of each others personal opinions. We're all entitled to them WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. Whether the bible is the word of god or not, it has something to teach us all. For example, judge not unless ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

It annoys me that each of you continues this dead end argument without realising its going nowhere, with no point.

[Peregrine]

"Religious Language is a game. You can only play it when you know the rules"

 

Except that I have simplified the "game." There is no interpertation of the bible involved, it's an entirely accurate historical account. No matter whose side it benefits, every one of God's actions is true exactly as stated.

 

And any reasonable human can judge morality. I stated as an initial condition of the debate that God can be judged by human standards. Unless you want to bring in the "atheists are all immoral" argument (one that is pure arrogance), I am just as qualified to judge God as the most religious person in the world.

 

Basically put, you, Peregrine, cannot judge the religious people here since you are (1) so biased in one direction that you are unable to give leway

 

Yes, I am biased. Hundinman is biased, you are biased, every single person in the world is biased to some degree. And this is a good thing, otherwise we would have to believe and accept anything, no matter how unreasonable. But I am willing to concede something, if it can be proven to reasonable standards of certianty. The problem is the lack of proof, not my unwillingness to accept it.

 

I will concede that God has done good things at times. But calling me biased because I will not accept everything God does as good is unjustified.

 

have neither the experience or knowledge a christian has of their god...whether he/she exists or not

 

I can read a book as easily as anyone else can. Remember, none of the interpertations of the bible are unarguable fact here. All that is definite fact (and therefore required to be known) is historical records of God's actions.

 

A judgement of the morality of God's actions from an atheist is just as valid (if not more so) than the judgement of a Christian. And perhaps my judgement is more valid, since I am looking at it from outside the massive influence of the Christian church. Many Christians blindly believe their religion's "truth" not because it is true, but because they have been told so well that it is.

 

And if you say my lack of experience with God makes my arguments wrong, then explain this: I have shown this debate to several of my friends (one of them a strong Christian), and all of them came to the exact same conclusions.

 

I believe all of you are being rude, obnoxious and opressive of each others personal opinions. We're all entitled to them WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.

 

That defies the purpose of a debate. If we can not attack personal opinions, then you have an opinion poll, not a debate. The whole purpose of a debate is to attack the other side's arguments until the truth wins. Every person who posted in this debate knew from the beginning that their beliefs would be criticized.

 

Whether the bible is the word of god or not, it has something to teach us all. For example, judge not unless ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

All of which are ancient rules of society which have existed long before the bible was written. And can be found elsewhere without the genocide, hypocrisy, and sadism that the bible includes along with these few bits of wisdom.

[Malchik]

I think the debate, taken on its very specific terms is over. One difficulty was that several of the posts lapsed into a discussion of religion outside the boundaries of these terms.

 

The ultimate problem is that many so called debates on religion are argued from a false premise. By its very definition 'faith' has to be a belief in something that cannot be proved. To ask or expect proof is to ask a belief to become a fact - in which case it is no longer a 'faith'. Interestingly, I accept that atheism is a 'faith', too. I cannot 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' that god does not exist. I simply hold to the view that my faith is as tenable as any other.

 

Therefore Peregrine is quite at liberty to say "I think people are foolish to believe in something for which there is no evidence." (Peregrine, that is my 'translation' of your arguments in a nutshell.) Unfortunately the only reasonable response is 'that is your opinion, you are entitled to it, but I feel differently.'

 

The 'heated' discussions occur around that little clause 'you are entitled to it' and I'm afraid there are times when neither side seems willing to make this concession. Dark0ne, you and I are both in the UK where, for the time being at least, the society is far more secular. In the US, it seems to me, the government, despite the wording of the constitution, comes close to introducing laws based not merely on a Christian ethic, but on a 'quasi-literal' interpretation of the bible. This is in spite of the fact that there are many in the US who adhere to other faiths or are atheist. Not even all US christians take the bible literally. I can't forget that in some US states the teaching of the theory of evolution was banned until the 1980s and there are strong lobbies to bring such a ban back.

 

It is hardly surprising if non christians, and even the more enlighted christians, object forcefully to being straight-jacketed in such a way. I would too, were it to be the same here. Since in the US it is slowly but surely moving towards a kind of civil war about religion (most countries have had these, why should the USA escape) then you are looking at extreme and polarised positions.

 

I have to say, if any one tried to impose their religious views on me through the laws of England, I would take to the barricades. Pointing out that a literal reading of the bible leads to the inevitable conclusion that the 'god' referred to has a number of serious failings, would be an argument I would use, too.

 

Any 'debate' is a simple statement of opposing views. Those involved in the discussions are not going to change their entrenched positions. The only people who can be swayed, one way or the other, are the undecided. (The uninterested won't be reading it anyway.)

 

I adhere by and large to a social ethic. Much of it is reflected in ALL documented religions. Christians tell me that it is a christian ethic. They are correct but it underpins most other faiths and existed, as Peregrine points out, before any of these modern mythologies were invented. I refuse to call it Christian. It is someone else's attempt to take what is good in society and imagine they invented it.

 

So let debate continue. Just remember that simple and unheated arguments are more likely to persuade the undecided. Too much sarcasm is likely to push people the other way.

[Peregrine]

REPOSTED FOR DARNOC (POST LOST TO SERVER UPGRADE)

 

========================================

 

Be away for one week somewhere in the Swiss alps and do not have any access to the Internet, then come back and what do you see: The debate has moved along. No, it has moved along a lot. I don't have the time now to read all that has been written during my absence, so I'll give something new into this debate.

 

1) It is only possible to make a just and correct jugdment when the person jugding knows all the facts.

 

2) Since we do not know all the facts, we can go on discussing and debating and we will never reach a correct judgment of god.

 

3) Since god is defined as allknowing, he is the only being existing which is capable of making a correct and just jugdment or action.

 

4) The possibility to do something doesn't mean that this possibility will happen. God is the only being capable of making a just/correct judgment or action. This doesn't mean that he makes a just/correct jugdment or action. He could choose to do otherwise. Ergo, he posses the possibility to be either bad or good.

 

5) But because we do not no all the facts (our knowlegde compared to the knowlegde of god is probably almost nothing) we will never be able to truly jugde god and to say that god has made a good or bad action/jugdment. We can only make a statement like this: "With our present knowlegde of the facts, god's actions/jugdments are bad/good". This doesn't mean that they acctually are good or bad, because we lack the knowlegde god posses.

 

6) So, in the end it is a matter of believe. Either we believe that god is bad or that he is good. Both oppinions can't be proven wrong or right, until we posses all knowlegde. Since this will probably never be the case, this subject will stay a matter of believe for all eternity.

 

7) This means that a person with the oppinion that god is bad will always think that this is the case, when he/she looks at the bible (if we assume that the bible is a true account of god's actions). And a person which believes that god is good will always think that god's actions are good. Both oppinions are neither right nor wrong, because we lack the knowlegde to make such an absolute statement about god.

[Darnoc]

Thanks Peregrin. I started to wonder, where my post went...

[Peregrine]

1) It is only possible to make a just and correct jugdment when the person jugding knows all the facts.

 

WRONG. It is only possible to make a just and correct judgement when one knows all the relevant facts. If I shoot you in front of a hundred witnesses and hand the court a signed confession, it is irrelevant if the judge/jury do not know what color shirt witness #89 was wearing. They can still come to the same (just and correct) conclusion that I am guilty of murder.

 

2) Since we do not know all the facts, we can go on discussing and debating and we will never reach a correct judgment of god.

 

WRONG. See above. We can make judgements based on partial facts if we know the relevant facts. And in the case of God, we know that he commits evil acts. The evidence of these acts is as unarguable as in my murder case from the previous example. That is all we need to make the judgement of "immoral barbaric murderer."

 

3) Since god is defined as allknowing, he is the only being existing which is capable of making a correct and just jugdment or action.

 

Wrong. See above. God can make judgements, and so can we.

 

4) The possibility to do something doesn't mean that this possibility will happen. God is the only being capable of making a just/correct judgment or action. This doesn't mean that he makes a just/correct jugdment or action. He could choose to do otherwise. Ergo, he posses the possibility to be either bad or good.

 

Concession accepted, thank you for arguing my side for me. God can not be assumed to be completely good, since he has the option to choose evil. And he does choose evil acts, therefore he is evil.

 

5,6,7

 

All of these arguments are based on a flawed argument. If 1-4 are not true, these can not be true either.

 

 

 

 

And in conclusion, stop dodging the point of the debate. It is stated in the initial conditions that we can judge God. Stop arguing that we can't judge God and make an argument related to his morality, or concede.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

yup, its happened. we made him mad. *GULP*

 

QUOTE 

1) It is only possible to make a just and correct jugdment when the person jugding knows all the facts.

 

 

 

WRONG. It is only possible to make a just and correct judgement when one knows all the relevant facts. If I shoot you in front of a hundred witnesses and hand the court a signed confession, it is irrelevant if the judge/jury do not know what color shirt witness #89 was wearing. They can still come to the same (just and correct) conclusion that I am guilty of murder.

 

close enough.

 

QUOTE 

2) Since we do not know all the facts, we can go on discussing and debating and we will never reach a correct judgment of god.

 

 

 

WRONG. See above. We can make judgements based on partial facts if we know the relevant facts. And in the case of God, we know that he commits evil acts. The evidence of these acts is as unarguable as in my murder case from the previous example. That is all we need to make the judgement of "immoral barbaric murderer."

 

And I agree, Perigrine, but since there is nothing we can do to stop it, short of uprising against heaven, which is impossible, it doesnt matter.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

4) The possibility to do something doesn't mean that this possibility will happen. God is the only being capable of making a just/correct judgment or action. This doesn't mean that he makes a just/correct jugdment or action. He could choose to do otherwise. Ergo, he posses the possibility to be either bad or good.

 

bulls***. God, because he says he is good, SHOULD not do such a thing, wether he is cappable to or not. And, the fact that he does, makes him bad, which makes him not god in coordination with the debates ORRIGINAL rules, and therefore not all-powerful/all-knowing, even though he HAS to be in order for all aspects of the debate to be valid, which makes him not god in coordination with the debates orriginal rules, and therefore not all-powerful/all-knowing, etc. because in order to be god, with the rules as witness, he must be both completly good and partially bad at the same time.

In other words, 110% doesnt exist.

[Darnoc]

WRONG. It is only possible to make a just and correct judgement when one knows all the relevant facts. If I shoot you in front of a hundred witnesses and hand the court a signed confession, it is irrelevant if the judge/jury do not know what color shirt witness #89 was wearing. They can still come to the same (just and correct) conclusion that I am guilty of murder.

 

WRONG. What is, if the murderer was controlled by a bad spirit when the homocide happened? This person would never ever murder any other person, but then a bad spirit took possesion of this person and commited the homocide. After this, the bad spirit left the person and this person has no memory at all that he/she was possesed by this spirit and acctually thinks he/she commited the murder.

 

We would never be able to prove that this happened or not happened, because our knowlegde and abilities are limited concerning spirits. This person will be condemned to prison/death sentence/whatever and wasn't guilty at all.

 

Of course, in this example we will never be able to prove anything. We must jugde on what ever we can prove. But whatever judgment we make in the end, we must bear in mind that is not and never will be the absolute true and correct jugdment, until the day we gain the absolute knowlegde. It is perhaps the correct jugdment with our present knowlegde. But this doesn't make it absolute.

 

So: God, because he is allknowing, is the only being existing which is capable of making any absolute correct jugdment.

 

My point is: With our present knowlegde we can perhaps conclude that god is bad or good. But this doesn't mean that it is the absolute truth. So this still leaves the possibility of belief. Even when our present knowlegde tells us that god is bad, I can believe that god is good, when we would posses all the knowlegde. Or vice versa. I can believe that when we would posses all knowlegde what we think now will be proven right. One of these oppinions is correct, but we will never be able to prove which one is correct, because we will never posses absolute knowlegde.

 

 

====================================================

 

Okay, here are some new arguments:

 

First, the definition of "sin". "Sin" is not action, it is power. "Sin" can be compared to a genetic disease and Adam was the first person to be infected. He passed a long this disease and so we all are infected with "sin". Because we have "sin" we will all die. Death is not a punishment, but a result of our infection with "sin". Only one person is guilty: Adam, the first human being. (Romans 5,12)

 

In order to heal us, god created an "antigene". But before someone can take medicine wilingly, this person must know that he/she has a disease. So god created the law. God knew that no one could furfill this law to 100% because every human being is infected with sin and one symptome of this disease is that we are forced to do things against the law of god. Those actions are called "sins". The reason for this law is that we can learn that we are infected. We should look at the law of god and then say "Hey, I am guilty! I broke the law!" When we realize this, we are ready to take god's antigene.

 

Because "sin" entered this world through one person, it was just that one person would take it away. This person was Jesus. It had to be Jesus. Only the blood of a person not infected with sin could be used as "antigen". Jesus was the only person without sin, because he was god. So, he died instead of us and his blood is the antigene taking away this disease.

 

Problem is, we aren't just all healed. Most humans react this way. "Help me god, I'm infected, it hurts, I'm gonna die!" God takes the medicine (Jesus' blood) and stretches his hand towards the human. "Here, take this medicine. It will heal you." But instead of taking it, the human being cries and moans. "I want to be healed, what must I do?", the person cries. God replies: "Just look at the cross where Jesus died and believe that this will take away sin." Then the human replies: "It has to be more complicated, this is too easy. Don't try to fool me!" And so it goes on and on until this person dies.

 

Now your reply will be: "Okay, but why does god not just make a movement with his fingers and takes away sin?" The reason is that god wants us to decide. He only wants volunteers, not puppets.

 

Next argument of yours will be: "Okay, so then he wants our decision. But since he knows everything, he knows all decisions and so we do not posses free will. We can not decide."

 

We discussed this problem very long. But let me bring in a new argument. God is existing outside time. The name he has given himself "I am" is perfectly correct. He is. He wasn't and he won't be. He is. For him, only "present" exists, no past and no future. This is because time doesn't exist for him. Every moment in history is happening for him at the same time. He is at the same time witnessing the creation of earth, the murder of Cesar, the discovery of America by Columbus, the election of Bush, the war in Iraq and also everything which is to come. For him, this world already ceased to exist and does exist still at the same time. For us it is different, because we exist inside time. We must go through this "stream of time" from the beginning to the end. For god, I am at the same time born, go to school, go to work and die. But I am standing in one exact point in time. God doesn't "forsee" things. They are just happening all at the same time. It is like a movie roll spread out in front of me. I'm looking at the whole film at the same time. But then I watch it and all the pictures I saw before at the same time are now played one by one. We are inside the movie, god is outside and looks at all the pictures at the same time.

 

Next argument of yours was that it isn't just to punish someone who commited a minor crime with the same punishment as someone who commited a major crime. From the human point of view, this is correct.

 

But firstly, we are not punished. Only Adam is guilty, because he brought sin in the world. We are infected and we have no other choice than to commit sins. We are slaves of sin. So, if we have no other choice than to commit sins, we can't be guilty. The only way we will become guilty is when we refuse to take god's medicine. Then we commited an act of our own decision. In hell there are only volunteers. It is also said in the bible that no one can be punished for something he didn't know that it was wrong (Rom 5, 13). Only when I know the law and then I break it, I am guilty. And as I said, god knew that no one could furfill his law. This is why it is said that everyone is guilty. The purpose of the law is that we learn that we need god's help and that we can not help ourselves. And this help is the death of Jesus on the cross.

 

God is only exterminating a disease. When someone dies physically and is still infected with this disease sin, god has no other choice than to put the diseased person away in a secure place. God plans to build a new world without this disease called "sin" or "evil". So he has to exterminate this disease and in order to do this he puts everyone infected somewhere secure. And as someone said: "Both in heaven and hell only volunteers will be. No one is forced somewhere. The place you will end is the place you choose to go."

 

And seconldy: In god's point of view you are either a sinner or not. To take an example from earth: Pestilence, the black death. When someone was infected it didn't matter if this person had heavy or light symptomes. This person would die sooner or later. And in order to protect the others, the body had to be burned so that no one else could be infected. What we call "sins" (note the plural form) are in fact symptomes of the disease "sin". If you wouldn't be infected with "sin", you wouldn't commit "sins". And it doesn't matter if you make many sins or not, you are still infected with sin because you are like every other human being a descendant of Adam, the first carrier of this disease. That we can learn of these symptomes and then take god's medicine, god created the law (as stated above). As soon as I learn of this law I become guilty when I break it. I honestly do not know what will happen with people who never learned of god's law. But there is a passage (Mat 25, 31-46). There Jesus says that those will enter his realm which commited good actions (gave food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, water to the thirsty etc.) and those which commited bad actions in their lives will be cast out in the darkness. It is also said that those to whom Jesus talks in this passage do not know that they earned their place in god's realm. So it is very probably that Jesus talks there about those who never knew about god's law. God jugdes our hearts. When I knew what was right to do and did it, I will not be condemned. When I knew in my heart what was right to do and didn't do it, I will be condemned.

 

Now god created an antigene. Because one person brought the disease in this world, one person had to take it away. You can either to choose to take the medicine and be healed or you can choose to not take it and die spiritually from the disease. Note, I said, you will die spiritually. Everyone dies physically. This is a symptome of this disease which isn't taken away. Our physicall bodys are destroyed because of this disease. There is still hope for our spirits. If you take the medicine or not determines if you will die spiritually or not. With "neverending life" not a physical life is meant but a spiritual. The spiritual dead will be "burried" in the graveyard. This place is called "hell". The spiritual living will be able to live further on a new earth without the disease "sin", because the source (Satan) is also burried in this graveyard "hell". And no one infected will enter this new world. In this new world only people who were healed will be.