A Brotherhood of Man

I judge God's actions based upon my views of right from wrong - i.e. my morality

Guess what?
You, my brothers who identify as Christian, do the same!

Not only that, but my views of right from wrong are largely the SAME as your views of right from wrong!!
My morality and your morality are mostly the SAME!!!

The only difference between you and me is that you suppress your judgement {a demonstrably better judgement than His} and make excuses where God is concerned - while I do not

In effect, you erroneously concede that your own judgment is garbage and falsely claim that His is paramount

If you wanna prove me wrong then all you have to do is affirm, here and now, that drowning babies and owning slaves and killing people because they don't agree with your faith is perfectly good and moral


The reason that I have yet to encounter a Christian willing to do so is because none of you are prepared to betray the basic human morality that most every one of us possesses
 
If you wanna prove me wrong then all you have to do is affirm, here and now, that drowning babies and owning slaves and killing people because they don't agree with your faith is perfectly good and moral
I hereby affirm (here an now, even) that if any of us brothers in your brotherhood of man, drowns a baby, owns a slave or kills people because they don't agree with them, they are not "perfectly good and moral." Or if they kill an unborn kid. Do you agree?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I hereby affirm (here an now, even) that if any of us brothers in your brotherhood of man, drowns a baby, owns a slave or kills people because they don't agree with them, they are not "perfectly good and moral." Or if they kill an unborn kid. Do you agree?
Don't you go wearing a mask and off on a rape rampage like the atheist Russkies.
 
I hereby affirm (here an now, even) that if any of us brothers in your brotherhood of man, drowns a baby, owns a slave or kills people because they don't agree with them, they are not "perfectly good and moral." Or if they kill an unborn kid. Do you agree?
Yeah, Stigs - you're very careful to state that A MAN drowning a baby, owning a slave, or killing another man for lack of faith is not good and moral, but you are pointedly avoiding a condemnation of the act{s} itself because you are desperate to excuse God!

Who do you think you are fooling??

Here, again, is what I said:
If you wanna prove me wrong then all you have to do is affirm, here and now, that drowning babies and owning slaves and killing people because they don't agree with your faith is perfectly good and moral


*All that said, let's not forget that God, personally, drowned babies AND allowed His followers to own slaves AND commanded His followers to kill unbelievers

But that was all in the past - under a different covenant - so it doesn't count, right, Stigs?
 
If you wanna prove me wrong then all you have to do is affirm, here and now, that drowning babies and owning slaves and killing people because they don't agree with your faith is perfectly good and moral
You're repeating yourself. See my previous answer.

Is poor Tree jealous that he can't drown babies with impunity like God can? Are you chomping at the bit wanting to drown babies? Let me give you some advice on how you might achieve that goal:

1. Create a universe.

2. Populate it with people, including babies.

3. If (You forbid) the planet on which you put your people grows so corrupt that the future of your babies looks bleak, remove your babies from the corrupt planet and take them safely home to yourself.

That's what Jehovah did. See if you can pull it off.
 
You're repeating yourself. See my previous answer.

Is poor Tree jealous that he can't drown babies with impunity like God can? Are you chomping at the bit wanting to drown babies? Let me give you some advice on how you might achieve that goal:

1. Create a universe.

2. Populate it with people, including babies.

3. If (You forbid) the planet on which you put your people grows so corrupt that the future of your babies looks bleak, remove your babies from the corrupt planet and take them safely home to yourself.

That's what Jehovah did. See if you can pull it off.
There it is!

God, according to Stiggy Wiggy, is allowed to be immoral because He created us and is capable of resurrecting us

In short, Stigs thinks that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and that the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS



God is better than that, Stiggy!
How sad for you that an atheist knows God better than you!!
 
There it is!

God, according to Stiggy Wiggy, is allowed to be immoral because He created us and is capable of resurrecting us

In short, Stigs thinks that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and that the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
Correct. The means of omniscient PERFECT LOVE are always justified by the end.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I judge God's actions based upon my views of right from wrong - i.e. my morality

Guess what?
You, my brothers who identify as Christian, do the same!

Not only that, but my views of right from wrong are largely the SAME as your views of right from wrong!!
My morality and your morality are mostly the SAME!!!

The only difference between you and me is that you suppress your judgement {a demonstrably better judgement than His} and make excuses where God is concerned - while I do not

In effect, you erroneously concede that your own judgment is garbage and falsely claim that His is paramount

If you wanna prove me wrong then all you have to do is affirm, here and now, that drowning babies and owning slaves and killing people because they don't agree with your faith is perfectly good and moral


The reason that I have yet to encounter a Christian willing to do so is because none of you are prepared to betray the basic human morality that most every one of us possesses
I pretty much agree with you, Treeplanter. A moral sense and faculty is something that is part of human nature and we abstract from our experiences to reach general principles regarding moral values and obligations.

I'd say differences come in when we try to ground morality and with regards ethical systems; this is a bit generalised, but I think theists tend to be more drawn to deontology and virtue ethics, whereas atheists (secularists?) tend to be more drawn towards utilitarianism and pragmatism.

With regards to special pleading for God, I think this is another key difference. There are at least three ways that this might run (and I tend to subscribe to the last two): (a) God has no moral obligations; (b) God has moral obligations but they aren't always the same as human beings; and (c) God is the ground of Being (and, as such, the ground of morality), therefore, anything God does is ipso facto good, so if something appears immoral it is likely we are mistaken when applying it to God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAG

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
A love that causes harm when it doesn't have to is not a perfect love, Stiggy

And God, if He is, in fact, God, NEVER has to cause harm
See, this is a good example of many atheists (and secularists?) holding to utilitarianism. "Not causing harm" is not equivalent to "loving someone". In fact, there might be many occasions when harming someone (or, at least, what looks like "harm" - depending on how we define the term) is actually the loving thing to do. The "harm" that God causes might be a result not of God but the instrument with which he is dealing, like a blacksmith necessarily must heat and hammer steel before he can shape it into a useful tool.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
See, this is a good example of many atheists (and secularists?) holding to utilitarianism. "Not causing harm" is not equivalent to "loving someone". In fact, there might be many occasions when harming someone (or, at least, what looks like "harm" - depending on how we define the term) is actually the loving thing to do. The "harm" that God causes might be a result not of God but the instrument with which he is dealing, like a blacksmith necessarily must heat and hammer steel before he can shape it into a useful tool.
If God is omnipotent, he could achieve his aims without letting anyone contract smallpox, just one awful disease out of thousands.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
If God is omnipotent, he could achieve his aims without letting anyone contract smallpox, just one awful disease out of thousands.
Maybe. However, there could be a good end that comes out of diseases like smallpox. As I've said somewhere before, physical human death has good ends that counterbalance the evil involved.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
Maybe. However, there could be a good end that comes out of diseases like smallpox. As I've said somewhere before, physical human death has good ends that counterbalance the evil involved.
An omnipotent God could achieve those good ends without the suffering of millions upon millions of people. It's as if you're suggesting that God introduced smallpox for a good end.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
An omnipotent God could achieve those good ends without the suffering of millions upon millions of people. It's as if you're suggesting that God introduced smallpox for a good end.
Who said God introduced smallpox? It's part of life in the universe. God may have allowed smallpox to develop for a good reason.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
Who said God introduced smallpox? It's part of life in the universe. God may have allowed smallpox to develop for a good reason.
But that's my point, an omnipotent God could fulfil or deal with that good reason without allowing smallpox.

In any case, you're speculating.
 
Top