[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[The Grand Nudger]

The better question would be why don't you? Particularly with your invocation of might. We've heard your position on genocides ordered by gods, but as you used the holocaust in your remarks above it's clear that you believe it to be in the "bad" category of untruth.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Do you advocate the holocaust?  That was accepted standard in Germany for a while.  If you don't, then it does not follow that the truth is a subset of accepted standards.

And you didn't refute her point at all

[Foxaèr]

The truth of the holocaust having happened does not excuse it having happened. Crossed wires, indeed.

[Angrboda]

You're equivocating.  If what is moral is defined by accepted standards, then the class of true moral propositions ("truth") is defined by those accepted standards.  You're trying to appeal to a different definition of moral truth, an objective one, after having adopted this first definition.  That's an error.  Either what is morally true is what accords with accepted standards, or it is not; you can't have it both ways.

Do you advocate the holocaust?  That was accepted standard in Germany for a while.  If you don't, then it does not follow that the truth is a subset of accepted standards.

That doesn't follow, but since it's irrelevant, it does not matter. Go back and reread my last response and reply once you've actually understood what I wrote.

[Sal]

Regarding: So far his morality is "Might makes right".

Well, it's an easy and convenient argument to make, and one I agree with.  I don't want to limit my replies to that narrow rebuttal, but it may become necessary.  When I was asked about holding God to some sort of standard, I immediately recused myself from that idea - I don't hold God to any standard, and wouldn't want to worship one who could be.

Jesus said, "there is no one good but God".  You might not like the idea of the Israelites committing genocide in the old testament or hellfire in the new testament, but those are expressions of his justice.  The initial post of this thread rages against the idea of eternal torment as an appropriate punishment,

If you find yourself unable to determine what is right because you lack the moral compass for it (your little notion of recusing yourself, as if it was some legality or something), then by what metric do you determine that god is good™?

If you don't understand this, then think of it this way: I can write the same sentence above, translate it, into 2 other languages I know, one of which there's no Google Translate for. Now, I recuse myself from being able to translate that sentence into Mandarin, because I am not able to due to lack of knowledge & ability.

In this analogy conferred to your argument, you're simultaneously claiming to know English and being able to translate it to Mandarin. I'm sure you'd be able to using a tool like Google Translate, but would you understand what it said in Mandarin ... ?

[GUBU]

Are you saying god's not all powerful nor all knowing?  That'd be going against a basic christian belief.

It'll be a tap-dancing answer the likes of which will put Riverdance to shame.  If only he knew he's worshiping a false idol.

RAmen

It's easy to put riverdance to shame, it's not a proper ceilí.

---

The trouble with foreknowledge and free will has nothing to do with a god, or with anyone making anyone else do anything.  

Laying aside the logical issues with foreknowledge and free will entirely, we'll have further moral difficulty understanding why an attribute that would make us responsible for x would not also make a god responsible for x.  If we do something knowing full well the consequence of that act, we hold ourselves responsible for that outcome.  

Do we hold gods to lesser standards than men?

We don't hold God to any standards, because He is God.  You can make up any standard you like, but you would be totally powerless to enforce it, so it is a moot point.  Therefore, it does not follow that if we are responsible for X then God is also responsible for X.

Why should we not hold this proposed being to a standard? If it is so good and just and merciful, then it should be more than happy to submit itself to a code of behaviour.

---

Do you think man-made laws are descriptive?

How do you square that god, in giving life, supposedly along with the Free Will™, is also sanctioned in ending it? You're arguing for nothing different than for parents to murder their children at a whim. Again, abhorrent and disgusting.

I don't understand the point of your first question.

How do you square that God, in giving live, is NOT sanctioned in ending it?  You're arguing for a God who is unable to do whatever He wants - Who is going to bring Him to justice?.  Laughable and illogical.
.

My parents gave me life, they have no sanction to end my life. Same with your parents.

Your fictional god doesn't come into the first side of your equation, therefore he has even less of a sanction to kill you than your parents do.

---

You're equivocating.  If what is moral is defined by accepted standards, then the class of true moral propositions ("truth") is defined by those accepted standards.  You're trying to appeal to a different definition of moral truth, an objective one, after having adopted this first definition.  That's an error.  Either what is morally true is what accords with accepted standards, or it is not; you can't have it both ways.

Do you advocate the holocaust? .

No but you did up thread. You stated that if god decreed a holocauset then it was good. Nazi Germany was a christian nation under a christian ruler who thought he was doing the will of god. By your own definition the holocaust was just and moral, given those facts.

[runewell]

If you find yourself unable to determine what is right because you lack the moral compass for it (your little notion of recusing yourself, as if it was some legality or something), then by what metric do you determine that god is good™?

Did the Germans have a moral compass when they slaughtered the Jews?

People can do what they think is right or what they want to be right, but that doesn't make it right.

You bring up an important point, by what metric is good™ defined?  If there is no standard of right or wrong and we do as we see fit, there won't be much left to discuss except when differing opinions on what is good eventually clash.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you find yourself unable to determine what is right because you lack the moral compass for it (your little notion of recusing yourself, as if it was some legality or something), then by what metric do you determine that god is good™?

Did the Germans have a moral compass when they slaughtered the Jews?

People can do what they think is right or what they want to be right, but that doesn't make it right.

You bring up an important point, by what metric is good™ defined?  If there is no standard of right or wrong and we do as we see fit, there won't be much left to discuss except when differing opinions on what is good eventually clash.

For starters, 'the Germans' didn't slaughter Jews, the Nazis (and particularly the SS) did. Most Germans were unaware of the slaughter while it was happening, and the ones who were aware mostly abhorred it. But yes - the Nazis did have a moral compass which they used to justify the Holocaust.

What people think is right or what they want to be right is EXACTLY what makes actions right or wrong. How people view these concepts changes with time and varies by culture, but 'right' and 'wrong' are exclusively human notions.

Boru

[downbeatplumb]

How do you lawfully murder someone, if murder is unlawful killing?  How do you lawfully unlawfully kill someone?  That's a contradication.

As for the non-sequitur, how does it not follow that if God can give life, he can take it away?  I wasn't referring to humans there.

And finally you call me in error for not expressing an opinion about the other adjectives??

Do you think man-made laws are descriptive?

How do you square that god, in giving life, supposedly along with the Free Will™, is also sanctioned in ending it? You're arguing for nothing different than for parents to murder their children at a whim. Again, abhorrent and disgusting.

In England it was legal to kill protestants, then a few years later it was legal to kill catholics.

I view both of those as murder, but they were legal at the time.

---

If you find yourself unable to determine what is right because you lack the moral compass for it (your little notion of recusing yourself, as if it was some legality or something), then by what metric do you determine that god is good™?

Did the Germans have a moral compass when they slaughtered the Jews?

People can do what they think is right or what they want to be right, but that doesn't make it right.

You bring up an important point, by what metric is good™ defined?  If there is no standard of right or wrong and we do as we see fit, there won't be much left to discuss except when differing opinions on what is good eventually clash.

It was quite standard practice in eurpoe for christians to kill jews, the nazis basically expanded an old tradition. 

The Rhineland massacres, also known as the persecutions of 1096 or Gzerot Tatnó[1] (Hebrew: גזרות תתנ"ו‎, Hebrew for "Edicts of 4856"), were a series of mass murders of Jews perpetrated by mobs of German Christians of the People's Crusade in the year 1096, or 4856 according to the Jewish calendar. The massacre is seen as the first in a sequence of antisemitic events in Europe which culminated in the Holocaust.[2]

Prominent leaders of crusaders involved in the massacres included Peter the Hermit and especially Count Emicho.[3] As part of this persecution, the destruction of Jewish communities in Speyer, Worms and Mainz was noted as the "Hurban Shum" (Destruction of Shum).[4] These were new persecutions of the Jews in which peasant crusaders from France and Germany attacked Jewish communities. A number of historians refer to the antisemitic events as "pogroms".[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

[The Architect Of Fate]

Did the Germans have a moral compass when they slaughtered the Jews?

People can do what they think is right or what they want to be right, but that doesn't make it right.

You bring up an important point, by what metric is good™ defined?  If there is no standard of right or wrong and we do as we see fit, there won't be much left to discuss except when differing opinions on what is good eventually clash.

Yay totally avoiding Sals question