Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[TheWhiteMarten]

Not a bad place to be in, since you couldn't objectively prove anything and would reject objectivity in favor of divine relativism even if you could.

No, I wouldn't - I would be a proponent of divine objectivism. Just because the human mind is incapable of understanding a concept does not make the concept inherently incapable to be understood, and with the right perspective we would gain that ability as well.

But yes, otherwise it is a nice place to be in - one that keeps me open to new information rather than closing it off if it clashes with my pre-conceived notions and keeps my mind engaged and thinking rather than stagnant and eroding.

Can't complain all in all.

[h4ym4n]

Two problems fairly leap to mind:

1. Why does God knowingly create people who will reject him?

2. Why would God give people free will and then eternally damn them for using it?

People don’t doom themselves, me old china. God does it for them.

Boru

1. While the Bible never explicitly tells us, the ability to reject God is at the very least just a natural product of our intellect.

Free will requires the capability to reason and process information in complex ways, as does all the beauty we produce; the arts and sciences.




2. As mentioned a few posts ago, this is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine - God is not "damning" us anymore than a judge "damns" a criminal to prison; while it's not an entirely wrong word to use it seems to almost entirely fundamentally miss the mechanic at action and place some blame of the judge and not the criminal.

Good thing gods original plan was to keep us away from knowledge of good and evil. 

Why didn’t god give A&E the free will to not be a person factory involving massive pedophelia  and incest?

[Sheldon]

It sounds to me like you're straw manning me, read my original post for proper context. Tell you what I'll save you the time, here it is:


I've emboldened the part where I very specifically made the point you are now suggesting I did not.

I understand your point, but I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways.  If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction. 
 

Except I am not trying to have it both ways, as I am not making claims that any kind of omniscience or omnipotence is possible, I am just pointing out contradictions in certain ideas like omniscience and omnipotence that I have seen apologists present, nor did I invent the principles of logic, the efficacy of which is well supported. If the beliefs of others are irrational, that is for them to address, or not. FWIW the only beliefs that logic don't apply to, are irrational ones, by definition.

You have to pick a lane.   That's fine if you want to grouse that theists shouldn't be allowed to define their god in a way that you find inconvenient, but that isn't a logical objection.  

Nor is it remotely what I am doing, is this not a debate forum, am I not aloud to examine ideas and claims?  That certain ideas I have seen apologists present, violate principles of logic, is absolutely a logical objection to those ideas. 

Moreover, anyone with even passing familiarity with the god of the bible knows that the idea that god has limits isn't something that apologists just conveniently pulled out of their ass, it's very plain from the biblical text that God has limits, such as his inability to lie.  

Great, care to show a single post of mine remotely stating or implying otherwise? You seem to have presented a straw man. 

If you have a problem with that, tough.  And no, I haven't strawmanned you. 

Yes you have, here again, plainly. I can only suggest you read my original post, and go through this exchange, it's not that long, and explain where you think I said the bible doesn't suggest the deity depicted has limits to its power? I even quoted my original post, and very specifically emboldened my qualification of this view as held by "some apologists". Though apart from this being another straw man, the bible also has passages that make claim the deity's power has no limits of course, shall I sententiously suggest anyone with a "passing familiarity of the bible should know this" as you just did to me? 

 I've pointed out facts that you find inconvenient about your position. 

You have not honestly represented any position I hold, and none of the claims you've made are inconvenient to any point I have made, you entirely ignored the context of my original post despite me requoting it and emboldening the part you've misrepresented. Try this. without going back roughly type what you think my original point was...in the context of the post I was responding to.
That there are different  views among theists an aphorists one what  they believe omniscience and omnipotence to mean has never remotely been disputed by me, nor have I once remotely suggested the view I assigned to some apologists I have encountered, was a mainstream view. my main original point was about a claim a theist made, about his chosen deity not being culpable in any way for its creation, you seem determined to ignore this, who knows why?

[Sheldon]

True, a deity that isn't bound by logic won't have to suffer the consequences of abusing it. However, us mortals are a different matter. Our little lumps of grey matter are still bound to thinking about things that don't explode our heads via logical contradiction. That's why you can't actually envision a square circle, a married bachelor, or a four-sided triangle. The moment that theology conjures something that violates reason it effectively removes it from human knowledge. Such a deity might exist but you'd never be able to understand it in any fashion. It would be much less Biblical and a lot more Lovecraftian.

In the appendix to one of his works, Plato argues that what the gods comprehend, mortals cannot, and vice versa.

Unless there is something beyond the bare claim here, this has all the hallmarks of an appeal to authority fallacy.

[Sheldon]

I am a big dummy, or if one prefers a middling intellect, with a mediocre formal education. However he never actually addresses what I have said, and can't avoid sententious posturing and name dropping, without actually offering any depth or valid criticism. 

1. Dropped Plato's name in, check.
2. Pointed out I knew fuck all about [philosophy, check. 
3. Implying he does, check. 
4. Never actually addressed any specifics, check. 



It's beyond tedious now, and I no longer have the patience to indulge what has all the appearance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

According to Plato, and many many Christians who were influenced by his thought, God takes no action and makes no decisions. I know this is different from the anthropomorphized version that many Christians describe, and that nearly all Internet Atheists argue against. However, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, and many others, up through Spinoza and Hegel, agree with Plato on this.

That's why it doesn't make sense, to these people, to talk about God "deciding" to do things. That would apply to the normal image of Zeus, but not to the Christian God. Decisions involve options, choosing this or that. God is already perfect, actus purus, and therefore doesn't change at all, has nothing to decide, and doesn't have the option to become unperfect. 

The usual follow-up to this is "but the Bible says God makes decisions!" and that's true. But the thinkers I've mentioned, unlike many Protestants and nearly all Internet Atheists, are not sola scriptura literalists, so they have no trouble building on an ancient conception of God which doesn't literally follow the Bible. 

I suspect that there are a lot of Christians who believe in the kind of God you're arguing against. I think you'd be surprised, though, at how many Christians follow the thinking that God is simply the Good, the Ground of Being, the Prime Mover (who himself has never taken any action). So if you want to argue against the anthropomorphized version, that would be useful if anyone who believes in that is posting here. It still leaves you, however, with the God of the Philosophers to deal with.

And that has what to do with @TheWhiteMarten's claim, and my response? Do you even remember what he claimed, or what my original post responded with, and why? I do wish some people would read the post, and address what was actually said, instead of tilting at windmills they imagine have been offered.

Do you think the amount of culpability a being or entity has would increased, diminish or stay the same, as it's autonomy of choice increased? This is a pretty simple question, that addresses @TheWhiteMarten's original claim.

[Sheldon]

I think most Christians reject the Prime Mover concept -- at least here in America. Most Christians seem to me to adopt the personal god. Of course, you're in Japan and not really in mainstream Christianity.

Thank you for making a very reasonable objection and not typing an insult to go with it. 

Maybe you should read your original response to me, and see if you can manage that once in a while. As your post didn't address my point or the context of @TheWhiteMarten's claim at all, and went out of it's way (yet again) to indulge in petty insult.

[Belacqua]

Do you think the amount of culpability a being or entity has would increased, diminish or stay the same, as it's autonomy of choice increased? This is a pretty simple question, that addresses @TheWhiteMarten's original claim.

No, I'm not interested in discussing the kind of anthropomorphic god that you're arguing about. 

It's not an issue for classical theism because in that tradition, God doesn't make choices. 

So I think we are interested in different things. That's OK.

[Sheldon]

Do you think the amount of culpability a being or entity has would increased, diminish or stay the same, as it's autonomy of choice increased? This is a pretty simple question, that addresses @TheWhiteMarten's original claim.

No, I'm not interested in discussing the kind of anthropomorphic god that you're arguing about. 

So you responded to a post, despite having no interest in the point it made, priceless. Just another vapid attempt to namedrop a well known giant of the philosophical world, and none too subtly imply you're far more well educated than I am. Then you have the fucking brass neck to whine about insults. Christ but you're tedious.

[Tonus]

In this context, what is the value of being able to choose? What good is it to have been capable of sin? Wouldn't we be better off with just the one choice?

That's a question I cant really answer for you, to be honest.

That choice is what makes us different from any other creature on the planet; that feature the one that has lead to our dominion over the world and at times over primal forces of nature itself. 

What value God gets out of that, I can't answer with any authority - but I find plenty of value out of that, esp. when when use that power in a just way or in a way that brings new beauty into the world.

I cannot help but wonder what it says about the deity who designed us that way. Not only are we capable of hurting one another (and ourselves), apparently this happens even if we wish it would not, due to our sinful nature. This latter feature is particularly problematic.

Imagine that a person is rewarded with heaven after they die. There are two possible outcomes:

1- This person is no longer capable of sin, or able to resist sin effortlessly. This person would have to be changed on some fundamental level in order to achieve this. Which leads us to wonder why this wasn't done from the start, as it would have dramatically reduced human suffering both in his earthly life and his eternal afterlife, while also achieving god's wish that everyone be saved.

2- This person retains his personality and mind, which means he is still capable of sin. This means that he will always be at risk of earning eternal punishment from god. On a long enough timeline, I doubt that anyone could remain in heaven. Otherwise, heaven would not seem all that different from earth, with the possible exception that punishment would be immediate since we would no longer have to wait for someone to die.

I think that a being of supreme power and intellect --who personifies love and wishes for all of his creation to be saved-- would have come up with a world where everyone is saved. I don't insist that there is no god, but I find this description of god to be contradictory; it doesn't make sense on a very important level.

[Sheldon]

Like people who doom themselves to being murdered, or beaten up, when they don't pay protection. It's their fault, not the scumbag deity...sorry criminal, who actually commits the crime.

Not at all; rather it would be more akin to those who choose to violate the legal codes of their country, insult and disrespect their family until they are disowned and disinherited, and continues to blame everyone else for their consequences of their behavior.

Ah, the analogy seems to have gone over your head. It was meant to illustrate the absurdity of the your hypothetical claim that a deity creating a scenario where people would inevitably end up being punished, was not at all culpable for the result, you see like a gangster punishing a victim because that victim chose not to do what the gangster said. Only of course we know gangsters exist and are possible, and have no objective evidence deities exist or are possible. 

More evidence you don't grasp what an atheist is.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God; just like a man is someone with a penis and XY chromosomes.

Not really, that's a false equivalence, but lets leave aside your inability to grasp that the term man need not solely refer to biological sex for the moment, and focus on your inability to grasp that not believing in a deity, is not in and of itself a motive, rather that resides in the choices each individual atheist makes, unlike theism which has doctrinal teachings and dogma to follow or not. 

Now we can begin to extrapolate certain things... most atheists are extremely prone to thinking reading the Bible (or worse, 5 sentences picked and chosen) makes them theological masterminds despite an almost constant display of failure to comprehend the subject - case in point, the statement that God dooms people to hell rather than it being a result of their choices. That is entirely of our making.

Ah you're going with a generic poisoning of the well fallacy, rather than specifically addressing the point, quelle surprise. So firstly the bible is a man made book, as are all books of course, but it is also demonstrably fallible in its ideas, and laughably erroneous in places, this is a given. So lets stick with the facts of your  claim. 

It's pretty obvious that we deem culpability based on how much choice or autonomy an entity has, we wouldn't blame a tree for killing someone if it fell on them, we would blame a human if they cut down a tree and didn't take proper precautions to avoid that. 

Now, that the bible may or may not support your claim is not really relevant, either the reasoning of the claim is sound or it is not. Simply repeating the source of the claim doesn't change that, it is a manmade book after all, but then so are all books. The Legends of Hercules are not objective evidence for those legends. 

Obviously this must remain a hypothetical discussion for me at least, unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible. You have ignored my request on this enough times now, so that I can only infer a negative.