Morality of God

[hundinman]

By the way i suppport hundinmans christtian beliefs 100%.

 

 

In the words of a very wise man:

 

" There is no evil, evil is only the abscense of God.."

 

 

- Percy Herbert

I have heard those words, a very famous scientist by the name of Percy Herbert stated thos words only 2 months ago. He also stated that sin is the absence of goodness, darkness is the absence of light, and a few other concepts that I currently do not recall. However, the only one pertaining to this debate is the one stated above,

 

"Evil is the absence of God."

 

I did not undertand this at first but he explained that what he meant is that evil does not exist. I think that most of you can agree that darkness is only the absence of light. Well, this is the same thing. In the Bible, God refers to the light as all things that are "of God" and the darkness equals sin (absence of good), and darkness itself (absence of light) I believe this theory to be correct but it is MY OPINION. And obviously the opinion of Percy Herbert and germanman. Well, can anyone else support this topic? Even shoot it down and tear it apart if you want. Just post some feedback.

[hundinman]

Well, if we take the book as God's word, and the ten commandments as God's word, then we realize that when God flooded the earth during the story of Noah that he broke one of his own commandments many times over. That is sort of hippocritical.

Sorry about the double post but they are both very diffrent and are not continuations so this will keep ideas seperate.

 

 

I do not understand how God is contradicting himself or breaking a law of his own. Make it specific and I will accurately prove you wrong.

[Peregrine]

*loads rifle of Godslaying +10*

 

I have heard those words, a very famous scientist by the name of Percy Herbert stated thos words only 2 months ago.

 

Nice appeal to authority. Interestingly, a search for Percy Herbert as a scientist produced zero results, while a search for Percy Herbert alone produced a long list of movies. If he's so famous, what did he do? And how is his scientific work relevant to this debate? The majority of scientists are no more qualified to debate this subject than I am.

 

"Evil is the absence of God."

 

By God's definition only. By any reasonable definition, God does things that would be clearly evil if a human did them. Therefore God himself is evil, and the quote false.

 

I did not undertand this at first but he explained that what he meant is that evil does not exist.

 

Then God's actions are even less justified. If there is no evil, God is punishing people who are innocent and good (the only alternative if evil does not exist).

 

I think that most of you can agree that darkness is only the absence of light.

 

Ok, that's basic fact.

 

Well, this is the same thing. In the Bible, God refers to the light as all things that are "of God" and the darkness equals sin (absence of good), and darkness itself (absence of light).

 

Unecessary comparison. The fact that two concepts are opposites does not make everything that way. And the fact that God uses the light/darkness explanation does not mean that it is the correct one. Any civilized system of morals recognizes more than two possibilities.

 

I believe this theory to be correct but it is MY OPINION.

 

Don't appologize for your opinions. If you are correct, then you have nothing to feel sorry for. It shows a lack of confidence in your own beliefs if you're not willing to state them as definite fact.

 

And obviously the opinion of Percy Herbert and germanman. Well, can anyone else support this topic? Even shoot it down and tear it apart if you want. Just post some feedback.

 

Nice appeal to authority. The fact that another person shares your beliefs is irrelevant unless you can explain why they have that belief.

[Peregrine]

Since you want this argument kept separate...

 

I do not understand how God is contradicting himself or breaking a law of his own. Make it specific and I will accurately prove you wrong.

 

Then one of two cases is true:

 

1) The law banning killing is an absolute law. Its origin is irrelevant, since it makes no exceptions based on who does the killing. God breaks this law when he destroys humanity.

 

2) The law banning killing is not absolute. God's justice is flawed since it is based on subjective enforcement of laws, and lacks an unbiased standard of justice.

 

Either way, God is a criminal.

[hundinman]

*loads rifle of Godslaying +10*

 

I have heard those words, a very famous scientist by the name of Percy Herbert stated thos words only 2 months ago.

 

Nice appeal to authority. Interestingly, a search for Percy Herbert as a scientist produced zero results, while a search for Percy Herbert alone produced a long list of movies. If he's so famous, what did he do? And how is his scientific work relevant to this debate? The majority of scientists are no more qualified to debate this subject than I am.

 

"Evil is the absence of God."

 

By God's definition only. By any reasonable definition, God does things that would be clearly evil if a human did them. Therefore God himself is evil, and the quote false.

 

I did not undertand this at first but he explained that what he meant is that evil does not exist.

 

Then God's actions are even less justified. If there is no evil, God is punishing people who are innocent and good (the only alternative if evil does not exist).

 

I think that most of you can agree that darkness is only the absence of light.

 

Ok, that's basic fact.

 

Well, this is the same thing. In the Bible, God refers to the light as all things that are "of God" and the darkness equals sin (absence of good), and darkness itself (absence of light).

 

Unecessary comparison. The fact that two concepts are opposites does not make everything that way. And the fact that God uses the light/darkness explanation does not mean that it is the correct one. Any civilized system of morals recognizes more than two possibilities.

 

I believe this theory to be correct but it is MY OPINION.

 

Don't appologize for your opinions. If you are correct, then you have nothing to feel sorry for. It shows a lack of confidence in your own beliefs if you're not willing to state them as definite fact.

 

And obviously the opinion of Percy Herbert and germanman. Well, can anyone else support this topic? Even shoot it down and tear it apart if you want. Just post some feedback.

 

Nice appeal to authority. The fact that another person shares your beliefs is irrelevant unless you can explain why they have that belief.

I accept your feeedback as very good. All though this was directed at Breton Thief Oriona, I was not clear. Percy Herbert is famous is California, I was still very vague on my info. In the future, I shall be more clear. ONE thing that Percy Herbert did was invent a test for a certain disease (name of disease will be supplied tomorrw) that is 80- 90% accurate. The other available test was only 30% accurate. (it tested whether or not you have the disease/cancer) well, he is known where I am from anyway. So, very good thoughts on my opinions. By the way, when i said that I believe the theory as my opinion I was making sure that everyone understands that I am not forcing opinions on anyone because I have been warned for it.

 

 

( the work he did has nothing to do with the debate, but his theory about evil being the absence of God is what I am using, not his scientific break throughs, so , me stating what he has done to contribute to science is not even worth posting. This week, sometime, I will send you a list of what he has done to contribute to science if you would like it.)

 

So, you support the fact that darkness is the absence of light.

 

Before I get into our debate any further, I would like to know why you are more qualified to use this debate than most scientists.

[hundinman]

Since you want this argument kept separate...

 

I do not understand how God is contradicting himself or breaking a law of his own. Make it specific and I will accurately prove you wrong.

 

Then one of two cases is true:

 

1) The law banning killing is an absolute law. Its origin is irrelevant, since it makes no exceptions based on who does the killing. God breaks this law when he destroys humanity.

 

2) The law banning killing is not absolute. God's justice is flawed since it is based on subjective enforcement of laws, and lacks an unbiased standard of justice.

 

Either way, God is a criminal.

@1: Why do you think that God is subject to keep laws he made for the humans to follow? God never said that he would not destroy man. I see your point that what God is doing is wrong but I disagree. the origin is a command FROM God to humans not a command for himself to follow along with his petty creations.

 

 

@2: How can you call God a criminal? He punsishes his people and that is his use of authority. Why SHOULD anyone follow him if he is not going to show some superiority amongst his creations. He allowed them to die because they were deliberately sinning against him and doing EVERYTHING that he had commanded them not to do i.e. murdering, worshipping other Gods before him, using his name in vain, coveting, stealing, commiting adultery, not honouring mothers and fathers, not loving their neighbors, and not loving God, and bearing false witness! (teaching false prophecies and Gospels)

 

 

So therefore I disagree with these two statements being the only options.

 

HM

[Peregrine]

The work he did has nothing to do with the debate, but his theory about evil being the absence of God is what I am using, not his scientific break throughs, so , me stating what he has done to contribute to science is not even worth posting.

 

Then why do you refer to him as a "famous scientist"? That's an appeal to authority. You're expecting us to value his quote more than others because he is a scientist. That's poor debating.

 

So, you support the fact that darkness is the absence of light.

 

Anyone with even a little scientific knowledge can tell you that.

 

Before I get into our debate any further, I would like to know why you are more qualified to use this debate than most scientists.

 

Not more qualified. Equally qualified. Knowledge of chemistry/physics/biology/etc means nothing in a debate of morals. Unless they have additional education/experience in a relevant area, they are no more qualified than the average person. Just like all the scientific education in the world won't help you one bit as an artist.

[Peregrine]

So therefore I disagree with these two statements being the only options.

That's unarguable. Either the law against killing is an absolute law, or it isn't.

 

 

@1: Why do you think that God is subject to keep laws he made for the humans to follow? God never said that he would not destroy man. I see your point that what God is doing is wrong but I disagree. the origin is a command FROM God to humans not a command for himself to follow along with his petty creations.

 

Then if God himself does not have to follow his own laws, they are not absolute laws, and subject to my comments in part 2. And your side has argued that some of God's actions were necessary because he had to be subject to the laws he made. If God can ignore the law against killing, he can ignore the law that says he has to punish evil. Therefore God chooses vengeance and destruction, and is evil.

 

@2: How can you call God a criminal? He punsishes his people and that is his use of authority. Why SHOULD anyone follow him if he is not going to show some superiority amongst his creations. He allowed them to die because they were deliberately sinning against him and doing EVERYTHING that he had commanded them not to do i.e. murdering, worshipping other Gods before him, using his name in vain, coveting, stealing, commiting adultery, not honouring mothers and fathers, not loving their neighbors, and not loving God, and bearing false witness! (teaching false prophecies and Gospels)

 

So genocide is morally good as long as you can state reasons for it?

 

If God's law against murder is not absolute, he has no right to enforce it. A law must apply to everyone equally, or it is not morally correct. Nowhere in the law does it state that killing is acceptable as long as you have a good reason. So there can be only one conclusion: God enforces his laws subjectively depending on what he feels like doing. If God himself is not willing to obey his own law, he has no right to force anyone else to, or to punish them for not obeying.

[hundinman]

So therefore I disagree with these two statements being the only options.

That's unarguable. Either the law against killing is an absolute law, or it isn't.

 

 

@1: Why do you think that God is subject to keep laws he made for the humans to follow? God never said that he would not destroy man. I see your point that what God is doing is wrong but I disagree. the origin is a command FROM God to humans not a command for himself to follow along with his petty creations.

 

Then if God himself does not have to follow his own laws, they are not absolute laws, and subject to my comments in part 2. And your side has argued that some of God's actions were necessary because he had to be subject to the laws he made. If God can ignore the law against killing, he can ignore the law that says he has to punish evil. Therefore God chooses vengeance and destruction, and is evil.

 

@2: How can you call God a criminal? He punsishes his people and that is his use of authority. Why SHOULD anyone follow him if he is not going to show some superiority amongst his creations. He allowed them to die because they were deliberately sinning against him and doing EVERYTHING that he had commanded them not to do i.e. murdering, worshipping other Gods before him, using his name in vain, coveting, stealing, commiting adultery, not honouring mothers and fathers, not loving their neighbors, and not loving God, and bearing false witness! (teaching false prophecies and Gospels)

 

So genocide is morally good as long as you can state reasons for it?

 

If God's law against murder is not absolute, he has no right to enforce it. A law must apply to everyone equally, or it is not morally correct. Nowhere in the law does it state that killing is acceptable as long as you have a good reason. So there can be only one conclusion: God enforces his laws subjectively depending on what he feels like doing. If God himself is not willing to obey his own law, he has no right to force anyone else to, or to punish them for not obeying.

Ok, we are not referring to a king making laws and breaking them himself. We are debating about our saviour and creator. He has the power to strike anyone dead at any moment if he wishes. But he does not because he is just. He enforces the commands that I listed by punishing the disobeyers. He made laws for us to follow and him to enforce. Is that not justified by him being our creator. Take a look outside your window (if it is light outside where you are) and tell me how that creation can happen on its own. I know that this topic is not Creation but a God with as much power as to speak all of that into existence deserves some credit and does not deserve people calling him unjust for punishing people who are sick and twisted. God says to fear him and not man or the devil. I do just that. I fear no one except God because he stated in the Bible that he is a jealous God and will punish those who put other things and idols before him and his superior power.

 

Even you must beleive that if there is a one true, all powerful, all knowing, superior being, that he is justified to enforce his own laws by punishment by death.

[hundinman]

The work he did has nothing to do with the debate, but his theory about evil being the absence of God is what I am using, not his scientific break throughs, so , me stating what he has done to contribute to science is not even worth posting.

 

Then why do you refer to him as a "famous scientist"? That's an appeal to authority. You're expecting us to value his quote more than others because he is a scientist. That's poor debating.

 

So, you support the fact that darkness is the absence of light.

 

Anyone with even a little scientific knowledge can tell you that.

 

Before I get into our debate any further, I would like to know why you are more qualified to use this debate than most scientists.

 

Not more qualified. Equally qualified. Knowledge of chemistry/physics/biology/etc means nothing in a debate of morals. Unless they have additional education/experience in a relevant area, they are no more qualified than the average person. Just like all the scientific education in the world won't help you one bit as an artist.

I believe that this little discussion is pointless and we are just geting off topic by justifying my statement of Percy Herbert being very famous.

 

I would like to focus on our other debate we have going.