(December 4, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Drich Wrote: I had this discussion already but dont remember with who. In short i changed my anaology to reflect the relationship between a parent and child. The parent may have rules for the child that may not apply to them. For instance Jr. is not allow to touch the stove, cross the street or stick anything into a light socket. But if the parent had to abid by these same rules everyone would starve in the dark. So in your world is the parent really bound by the same rules the child is?But you would expect the parent to follow a moral standard. For example, he is limiting his child's freedom out of concern for it's health. We would expect the parent's actions to promote the safety of the child. If he were to savagely beat the child such that it was in danger of severe injury or death, we would not excuse his action on the basis that he is subject to a different set of rules than the child, nor would we excuse it on the basis that he was responsible for the child's life and therefore the child's life was his to take.
Therefore I don't know if it's proper to analogize god's moral responsibilities by comparing him to a human. The theist sees man as a mortal and relatively weak creature who cannot impose his will in the way that god can. Even the young child may eventually grow strong enough to overcome his parents, even if he is still of an age where they expect him to be subservient. Man has no such option when it comes to god. We are forced to accept whatever god does, regardless of what type of action it is.
And if that is the case, then god cannot serve as an example for us. We cannot be "perfect" like he is. He is not a "father" in any sense that we understand the word. I think that "lord" or "king" are the proper terms, as it identifies his relationship with us much more accurately than "father." He commits acts that we would consider horrifying were they committed by a parent on his child. Nor can we properly describe our relationship with him as loving in any way. "Fear" is more appropriate. A loving parent doesn't do some of the things that god is described as doing in the Bible. That he is free to do so because he is powerful enough does not make him a loving father, but it does make him a fearful king.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould