The Arborist & I: A Dialogue

D

Diogenes

Guest
The god that Christians believe in is immoral

That would require moral realism to be true, the Christian God existing, the event occurred, knowledge of all relevant moral facts surrounding the event.

You've yet demonstrated any of those requirements.

The only reason I care about Christians believing in an immoral god is because it shapes their own moralities and morality is what determines how we interact with one another

Christians don't go around drowning babies or advocating such actions.

I desire to disavow Christians of this harmful belief

The "harm" would be tensions within the belief system, assuming the Christian believed the Flood actually occurred. That's about it.

It is my intention to do so by way of opening the eyes of Christians to God's immorality as described throughout scripture

While unwilling to take account for the theological backdrop.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
ARBY: I'm angry that God drowned babies.
I think I am different. I think it is strange to worship a god who drowned every baby on the planet. I think it is odd to say that is a god of love when he committed such cruel acts.

I do not get upset because I see no reason to believe it happened. And I think anyone can believe or worship whatever they want. But I enjoy discussing the contradiction at the core of Christianity - God is love and God killed every living things on the Earth in the greatest genocide of all time. Those contradict.

It also saddens me when normally rational, moral people twist to try and say killing everyone on Earth is a loving act. Its a shame that religion can make normally good, decent people say and believe such horrible things.

Luckily there is no reason to believe it is true. But the contradiction in Christianity is fun to debate. That's exactly what an apologetic forum is for, right?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
I'll go you one better. I worship a God who desires that every human being who ever lived or lives ultimately dies, and will see to it that they do.
Nothing wrong with God having set up a system wherein we ultimately die

The immorality is in consciously and purposefully inflicting needless harm in the course of and/or so as to effect said death
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
If an end result cannot be achieved without XYZ then XYZ is necessary

If an end result can be achieved without XYZ then XYZ is unnecessary
Since you, an alleged atheist, can look into the heart and mind of a God in whom you don't believe, tell us all what "end result" He was trying to achieve by choosing a worldwide flood as His means for replenishing the world He created.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Since you, an alleged atheist, can look into the heart and mind of a God in whom you don't believe, tell us all what "end result" He was trying to achieve by choosing a worldwide flood as His means for replenishing and starting over the world He created.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
If an end result cannot be achieved without XYZ then XYZ is necessary

If an end result can be achieved without XYZ then XYZ is unnecessary

At the time of the flood, we see Noah as a righteous man and the rest of the world corrupt (either by original sin or actual sin). The motivation behind the Flood was to destroy the corruption. If the desired result was to destroy the corruption that was on the earth, saving anyone outside of Noah's family would have been contrary to the purpose of the Flood and the desired end result would not have been achieved.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
What is the criterion or criteria for "needless"?
unnecessary.
Often harm or pain is a consequence of an action that is part of a more important benefit. For example a vaccination shot causes pain and a bit of harm to local tissue but the benefit outweighs the pain. And at this point, our options are limited.
God, in the otherhsnd is omnipotent and is not limited so pain/harm is unnecessary. He could conceive of another, just as perfect plan that doesn't involve pain.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
At the time of the flood, we see Noah as a righteous man and the rest of the world corrupt (either by original sin or actual sin). The motivation behind the Flood was to destroy the corruption. If the desired result was to destroy the corruption
Well, God didn't do that; he wiped out human beings, but corruption.
that was on the earth, saving anyone outside of Noah's family would have been contrary to the purpose of the Flood and the desired end result would not have been achieved.
And it wasn't achieved - it didn't work; corruption persists.
God is incompetent.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
Well, God didn't do that; he wiped out human beings, but corruption.

And it wasn't achieved - it didn't work; corruption persists.
God is incompetent.

The corruption that was on the earth at the time was destroyed and God seemed satisfied with the Flood and its results. Through the Mosaic covenant and then through Jesus, salvation was obtainable.

unnecessary.
Often harm or pain is a consequence of an action that is part of a more important benefit. For example a vaccination shot causes pain and a bit of harm to local tissue but the benefit outweighs the pain. And at this point, our options are limited.

God, [on the other hand] is omnipotent and is not limited so pain/harm is unnecessary. He could conceive of another, just as perfect plan that doesn't involve pain.

While the Christian God is omnipotent in capability, God is restrained by other aspects. As a just being, any actions God takes comport to a just nature. A just being would not take actions that reduced pain if justice was not satisfied. At best, a just being would act to reduce pain in so much as justice could also be achieved.


As stiggy has observed, atheists don't believe these events happened so it's like calling Darth Vader evil for killing the kids in the Jedi temple. Also, the largest Christian denomination doesn't believe these events actually happened. If the events did happened, the Christian God would exist and any actions would have to be evaluated based on that moral framework. If you're just going to say the Christian God is immoral but then say morality is subjective, the statement "God is immoral" become factually vacuous.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
The corruption that was on the earth at the time was destroyed and God seemed satisfied with the Flood and its results. Through the Mosaic covenant and then through Jesus, salvation was obtainable.
So not only did God's plan not work long-term, his plan needed a band-aid later.
While the Christian God is omnipotent in capability, God is restrained by other aspects. As a just being, any actions God takes comport to a just nature. A just being would not take actions that reduced pain if justice was not satisfied. At best, a just being would act to reduce pain in so much as justice could also be achieved.


As stiggy has observed, atheists don't believe these events happened so it's like calling Darth Vader evil for killing the kids in the Jedi temple.
Quite right and that's exactly the nature of the discussion.
Also, the largest Christian denomination doesn't believe these events actually happened. If the events did happened, the Christian God would exist and any actions would have to be evaluated based on that moral framework. If you're just going to say the Christian God is immoral but then say morality is subjective, the statement "God is immoral" become factually vacuous.
Subjectivity does not preclude judgment. The philosophical problem arises when two parties who share core moral values disagree in their judgments of God.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
I'll go you one better. I worship a God who desires that every human being who ever lived or lives ultimately dies, and will see to it that they do.
Yes. And the majority of them will burn in a lake of fire for eternity. You worship a god who is going to burn almost everyone for the crime of not worshipping.

Its fine that you worship that god. I could never do it. I cannot think of a more evil being than a god that created billions of humans only to send them to Hell for eternity.

And calling that being a god of love is just nonsense.

But to each his own :)
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Since you, an alleged atheist, can look into the heart and mind of a God in whom you don't believe, tell us all what "end result" He was trying to achieve by choosing a worldwide flood as His means for replenishing the world He created.
Stiggy, where babies are concerned, it was YOU who told me what God's "end result" was!

You said that God drowned babies in the Flood, not because they were wicked and deserved to be drowned alongside the wicked adults, but rather as a means of saving them from a fallen world and resurrecting them to a better one

Ramification of your declaration:

Either God had no means, other than drowning, by which to save and resurrect babies
{in which case He is a weak and pathetic excuse of a god}

OR

He consciously and purposefully chose to inflict the needless harm of drowning upon innocent babies
{in which case He is an evil and immoral god}

In either case, He is not a god worthy of our devotion
 
Top