(March 28, 2014 at 7:14 am)alpha male Wrote: How, then, do we justify criticism of God for his treatment of us? Cannot he use the same justifications that we use regarding animals?We can go one further with a being like god, using the 'might makes right' principle. He can justify his actions by pointing out that no one can force him to answer for them. He is supreme, and therefore the issue is not about right and wrong or good and evil, but whether or not we can do anything other than criticize him or try to reason with him.
I think that this is why the story of Job should be unsettling for Christians. If god is above human justice in the most literal sense, and if god's actions are good/moral/just by definition, then nothing stops him from making completely arbitrary decisions. We have the option, for example, of making Michael Vick pay for his horrific mistreatment of animals (putting aside the question of whether the price he paid was sufficient). Not only do we not have the option of making god pay for his treatment of humankind, we are told that we cannot even label his actions as evil or wicked.
I have no qualms about swatting a gnat. I feel no shame or remorse over it, it's something that usually doesn't even register. If we are as gnats to god, then we have no cause to judge him for his actions. But we should be utterly terrified of him.
"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