(August 21, 2010 at 11:39 pm)Entropist Wrote: "Do as I say, not as I do." Nothing wrong with genocide as long as the Judeo-Christian god is the one giving the orders. And Christians think atheists lack a moral compass...?

BTW Padriac, this is what I am talking about when referring to a "syllogistic bubble": Logically this god can ONLY be just, therefore...

That makes no sense Ent. To interpret the will of God who is understood to be completely just has to have the aim of ultimate justice. I dealt with it already and you repeated the illogicality.

As a model of perfect morality God as a role model is better than a human as a role model. How a human fairs in achieving the goal isn't pre-disposed by anything, as belief isn't a magical pass but an aim to perfection.

(August 22, 2010 at 5:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: That makes no sense Ent. To interpret the will of God who is understood to be completely just has to have the aim of ultimate justice. I dealt with it already and you repeated the illogicality.

As a model of perfect morality God as a role model is better than a human as a role model. How a human fairs in achieving the goal isn't pre-disposed by anything, as belief isn't a magical pass but an aim to perfection.

By whose standards is God just? His own? Also, saying that the slaughter of the Midianites was for the greater good is possible, but not at all plausible. I might as well say that Stalin was a bright chap who knew what he was doing, though no-one else was sure, and therefore the Purges were for the greater good.

By our understanding of perfection OO. We define God as perfect in that respect. The story is set with that precept, therefore you can know that we're talking justified killing here, no matter how implausible that might sound to you.

Stalin was a human being who we can know didn't possess knowledge of all ramifications of his actions into infinite future, so can judge his actions as unjust.

(August 22, 2010 at 6:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: By our understanding of perfection OO. We define God as perfect in that respect. The story is set with that precept, therefore you can know that we're talking justified killing here, no matter how implausible that might sound to you.

Stalin was a human being who we can know didn't possess knowledge of all ramifications of his actions into infinite future, so can judge his actions as unjust.

Well god can't be very omnisentient then, because if he was he wouldn't let things get to a point where he had to have thousands slaughtered.

Yet another example of his ineptitude, along with thinking that bats are birds.

(August 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm)Entropist Wrote:

(August 21, 2010 at 6:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The bible was written by men and is potentially errant, yes. The repulsive stories remain as important information on the nature of God. It doesn't show God as cruel as that would be contrary to his nature and therefore logically inconsistent.

It is "repulsive" but not "cruel"? Because by your definition this god cannot be cruel, the slaughter this god commands (and occasionally does the slaughter himself) is NOT cruel. Nice circular logic there.

So when a human being commands the slaughter of people, that's cruel. But when this particular god is issuing the orders, that's good. Orders are orders, eh?

The story is illustrative of God's judgements, which whilst to us appear to be cruel (because we aren't privvy to the information), are just. Logically God can only be just.

I can't think of a justification for a human to slaughter people. It's the limited knowledge thing. Orders in this sense are only so if one knows enough to ascribe them to God. Assuming one or the other we evaluate the story : either it was God's will and just, or people's will and unjust.

And this is how religion turns nice reasonable people into atrocity machines.

Thanks for giving such a text book example on the evil of religion Frodo.

"The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform" can be used to justify pretty much anything!

God isn't just for no reason. The model is Zen that you're created with a choice to accept or not. It's your choice that condemns you and not God. He just carries out the judgement.

Sorry fr0d0...Zen will deny being created.....he has always been, after all "it is a Badger's universe"

After all ...your god is a complete idiot as far as 'Intelligent design' goes....i mean really...the play geround in the sewers??? How is THAT intelligent?? >.< @

(August 22, 2010 at 8:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God isn't just for no reason. The model is Zen that you're created with a choice to accept or not. It's your choice that condemns you and not God. He just carries out the judgement.

Your last few posts are solid examples of why people should actively oppose religious thinking.

You made it plain, that if you could be convinced that something was 'gods will' then you would commit acts of evil, even if you knew they seemed evil to you, because 'god is just and cannot be wrong'.

This is the mindset of suicide bombers, Taliban and.........


(Count to ten Downbeat...)

(August 22, 2010 at 8:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God isn't just for no reason. The model is Zen that you're created with a choice to accept or not. It's your choice that condemns you and not God. He just carries out the judgement.

Don't change tack Frodo.

If god is all knowing and all powerful why does he let things get to a point where thousands "need" to be slaughtered?

Why doesn't he deal with the situation before it gets out of hand? Since he supposedly knows beforehand what's going to happen.