How is Yahweh not immoral?

[The Grand Nudger]

THEN EXPLAIN HOW YOU WILL REACH HIM!!!

Why, I am not required to explain this to make my point, nor does my refusal to humor your constant appeals to might detract from my point.

THEN EXPLAIN WHAT YOU CAN DO!

Here in these last two comments we see shades of your god. "You can't stop me!" screamed the villain.

Because only you can change that. That term is so trivial it means nothing. Because you can use it to describe anyone you do not like for what ever reason.

Not quite Drich, the term has meaning, and the term applies. You don't like it's use, but if this were the case then you shouldn't have proposed a tyrannical god. There are a great deal of things I don't like that don't qualify as tyranny, and I positively can't use the term tyranny -for whatever reason- or else it loses it's meaning.

This is the core of the matter. This is why you have been given this life. To make this desision. To either be with God or to turn away from Him. Again you can dress up the reason you want to turn from God with any words you like (tyrant, butcher unjust, absent unloving, etc..) whatever your reason they are yours, and God will not change to suit you. you either fall in line or seperate yourself from Him. If you want to 'fall in' but can't then He can help whatever your reason if you just a/s/k. If not then know he will allow you the reasons you currently want to hang on to.

Hopeless bullshittery.

All I am saying is follow your reasons to their ultimate ends. So you judge God a tyrant. now what? Does it change anything? It is better to rot in Hell with your judgement or ask God to help you see the Truth (not the subjective truth that allowed you to judge God with your own standards) But the Unwavering unchanging truth.

Wait..wait, now I''m rotting in hell, I thought I just got to spend eternity separated from a tyrant? I've already addressed this question of yours at least a half a dozen times. Whether or not I can do anything to oppose a tyrant doesn't change whether or not they are a tyrant. If the ultimate truth is tyranny.....then yes, I'd rather rot in hell, (now that we're rotting).

I want to add here Drich...that if we grant you your fairy tale - that god may have been onto something when he created people like me. People who would rather rot in a tyrant's dungeon than sing his praises at the fucking palace.

The Devil is in the details and you have skipped over alot of the 'details' to make you final judgement.

The devil is nowhere, same as your god. What detail have I missed? As your gods only mouthpiece round these parts...... if I've failed to form an accurate judgement of this god it;'s entirely possible that my assessment of this god is incorrect because you have failed to accurately inform me of those details -yet another notion that I've already addressed-. In the great hereafter( if there is such a thing) a god (if there is such a thing) has a mountain of bullshit to climb over. A mountian which you, personally, have had a hand in erecting.

If your going to change the arguement we have nothing to discuss. we have come to an impass.

What's changed? You propose a tyrant god, I reject its authority on the basis of tyranny. You offer inadequate analogies, I elaborate on why they are weak.

The word tyrant is an expression based on personal persepective. For example king George was a tyrant to all of those in the 'colonies.' but a hero to all of those who benfited from the taxes and raw materials comming from those colonies.

Ah, so you do understand what it means to be a tyrant, what tryanny means, you do understand that it isn't just whatever I disagree with or don't like.....I'll hold you to this going forward.

I have no issue stating this again. God can be viewed the same way. For all of those looking to seperate themselves from God will view him as a tyrant.

Does you description of this god deserve the title? I think that it does

It is in your nature to do so.

Whether or not your idea of a god proposes a tyrant has more to do with your description of a god than my nature. My nature can't make god a tyrant, nor can it prevent a god from being a tyrant.

What is the difference between King George and God? Their is Absolutly nothing you can do about God. God is unchanging and the ultimate and final authority on everything in all of creation. Which means if He is the standard and we are out of that standard then 'we' are the unjust monsters, not God. For we disrupt, corrupt, and bend things to our will want and desire. Despite what God has built and purposed it for. You have the right idea, you have just projected your failings onto the holy God who has created everything and given it purpose, and then justified what you have done by labling God the tyrant.

Again we see the appeal to might, hallmark of tyranny if ever there were one. Your god is no such standard, and cannot even live up to the standards of supposedly lesser creatures. It's worthless even as a principle or concept, congratulations.

If I have I appologize. most of you jump in and out of each other conversations it is sometimes hard to keep track who said what.

the apologist apologizes while blaming his audience.....

Then why use them to judge God as unjust or a tyrant?

Oh, you mean "because I can and god is powerless to stop me" won't work?

This is really simple, I would hold a god to any standard I would hold a man to. If a man is a tyrant for doing thing a...and god also does thing a..that god is a tyrant. I'm willing to entertain the idea that my standards are inaccurate, but to do so would require reason, and "Because I'm powerful" doesn't qualify as reason...ironically, it qualifies as tyranny.

I've answer this. I can't say for sure I answer you directly but I did answer this twice now. (last post) matter of fact. In short I said humans would and do have to continually default to 'tyranny' as it is a term built on another perspective of unfair treatment. Their will always be tyrants as not everone will always be happy with the direction of another. At somepoint Might makes right, because we will have to force the minority to accept what is best for the majority.

Is/ought. Yes, there is tyranny, that doesn't mean there should be. That we do default to tyranny doesn't mean that we should. We clearly understand this if our response to tyranny is any indicator..even if we are incapable of consistently opposing tyranny. At no point does might make right, might makes might. We do not -have- to force a minority to accept anything, and the very notion of forcing a minority to accept something is again...a bare appeal to tyranny. Don't you think that providing a compelling reason for any judgement or portion of our will is superior to simply forcing it upon another? Isn't this what our entire concept of government (authority) and justice (enforcement) is built upon? Don't we encourage and protect dissent? The moment we simply force people to do whatever we say is best for them with no recourse -is- the moment that we have lost all authority...even if we retain the ability to leverage force.

I am not sure what you are asking here.

I'm asking you if you would accept the authority of any governing body simply because they leveraged (and were capable of leveraging) force.

In Human based tyranny their is always something that can be done. An appeal to be made a war to be fought. With God their is nothing. Your question should be why. Not what can I do to make God accept my justice or morality.

Tell that to those who died under tyrannical rule with no recourse available to them. Tyranny doesn't cease to be tyranny simply because you cannot oppose it. No god would have to accept my justice or morality, but whether or not it accepts either has nothing to do with whether or not my justice or morality is superior to it's own. Whether or not it's justice and morality are, in fact, neither of those two things..but more aptly: tyranny.

ok so what? You don't recognize a tyrants rule? Who are you to judge someone a tyrant?

A person who understand the meaning of the term, that's who.

Is everyone who treats you unfairly a tyrant?

Nope.

If your fav vice was deemed illegal, and you were caught doing whatever, and got a steep prison sentence would the goverment that deemed your vice illegal then become tryannical?

Depends, what is the justification behind the law? Maybe my favorite vice is drinking iced tea? What do you think, would a steep prison sentence from drinking iced tea by an example of tyranny in your estimation?

While rotting in Jail would you still claim that you did not recognise that goverment's rule?

If I was in jail for drinking iced tea I most definitely would, to the day of my death....refuse to recognize their right to imprison me for such an offense. I certainly wouldn't be extolling said governments virtues.

Can't you see the goverment has authority over you even if you do not recognize it? (otherwise you would not be in jail) That is how you arguement fails. That Authority does not need nor does it seek your permission to rule over you, no matter what you think of it.

You mean they have power..they have might. This is not authority. Our authority does need to seek our permission to rule over us...here again is an example of how our standards..the standards of men, are superior to the standard you propose as a god. I guess I get to say this again.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

We see may instances where the government has become more powerful than the will of the people. A government that forces its will on the governed rather than seeking their consent. I do not recognize the authority of such governments, and neither do a great many others. Do you?

What part?

All of it, actually. I think you argued yourself into a shitty corner.

You have no clue. I have completely given my self over to God and have been through hell and back as a testament to my commitment. I do know what slave ownership is and i am not saying I would submit myself to the victorean model of slavery in anyway shape or form. But have submitted myself to the role God has askd us to fill in this life. This model is based on the model of slavery He gave to the Jews, so before you say this isn't slavery I will say the model most of you understand to be slavery is not Biblically based slavery I am speaking of. To be a slave is to submit your will and the authority of your life over to another. At which Point the other takes full ownership and responsiablity of those in his care. Victorean slavery did not do this. I honestly do not think you understand what slavery is. White guilt and indoctrination has limited your understanding of slavery to One narrow view of it, not allowing you to see all of it.

LOL, white guilt and indocrination. For fucks sake Drich...why would I feel guilty about slavery? You're going to tell me that I don't understand slavery and then immediately attempt to create a definition for it based on your ghost stories?

My poor confused brother. Don't you understand? You are a slave too.

Woah there motherfucker..don't try to sell me off to your goddamned master. Didn't you just say that slavery is a willing commitment? I am most definitely not a slave.

A slave to your sin (If you think your not then try and stop)

ignorance, there is no such thing, and I'd have to "start sinning" to worry about whether I could "stop sinning"...

a slave to your job (again try and stop)

LOL, most who know me disagree. I work when I want. I can leave whenever I like. I don't -have- a job you jackass..I -own- my "job".

A slave to your soceity (if not go against what soceity will you to do)

Wrong again, because I live here in the US, same as you, where slavery is patently illegal.

We are not independant men. We are Literal Slaves to the things we give ourselves to. You are no different than me other than I have given myself to God who work load is easy and burden light.

No, we're not independent, but being interconnected or interdependent doesn't make anyone a slave. What kind of weird ass reasoning went into that comment? You and are are very different. You are someone else's property and I am not.

Something you may want to consider in all of this btw...is that I'm not actually judging your god (I only assume that language because experience tells me that you are incapable of understanding my comments any other way)...I'm actually judging -your- proposals. -Your- ideas of justice or authority. -Your- ideas of slavery. In truth, god is no tyrant, god is no master of slaves....but I have a sneaking suspicion that you might be suited for both professions. I get shit (even on these boards) for my hardline approach to the deep seated and fundamentally crooked nature of a christian believer. You, to me (for what it's worth) seem to be offering very christian arguments. You arguments are also an example of why I have such a low opinion of christianity. Why my measure of how decent a christian might be is directly related to how un-christian- their thought process is. How far they would distance themselves from the sort of things you're proposing.

[Undeceived]

Kirbmarc, here's what the Bible has to say on God's love for you, not for some group of people in the past:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son."
"But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
"The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing."
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."
"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you."
"Who shows no partiality to princes, nor regards the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands."
"But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness."
"I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me."

You could try to be noble and say "Since God did not treat the Canaanites like He promises to treat me, I will go on strike and reject His gifts" but would you be truthful? Is that really the reason you turn your face from your Creator?

[Minimalist]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son."

Um...

Genesis 6

13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Your god is a fucking psycho.

[Cyberman]

I got this. I got this.

In my best Drichy voice:

"Oh we'll see how senile He is when he opens a can of whoop ass vengence on your ass at the judgement!!

Oh, Oh Let me go now, Let me Go...
(In my best "Cinjin" or "Faith no more" voice)

"That is 25 point for preaching! How many times must we post the rules on preaching? Derpa, derpa, Stop being a martyr! Herpa, Derpa, We have been nothing but fair and understanding..."

So, easily-self-pleased person; you can recognise preaching when you see it. That's something to bear in mind for future reference.

[Kirbmarc]

Undeceived, thanks for answering. Premise: I am an atheist, therefore I don't believe that any god is real. I'm judging the morality of the god of the Bible as I would judge the psychology of any other fictional character, such as, say, Hamlet or Harry Potter.

"I love those who love me

That's the root of the problem. Anyone loves people who love him. Even Adolf Hitler loved Eva Braun. The problem is not about whom you love or you don't love (you're free to love or not love anyone you want) but what you do to people you don't love.

I dislike people who chat during a movie. However, I'd never hurt them, physically or otherwise. I just wish they stopped doing what annoys me. The god of the Bible committed genocide. I think that if he is set up as the paradigm of morality, he utterly fails at it.

Most people are morally better than the god of the Bible. I am, you are, everyone who doesn't wish for genocide is. You are morally better than your god, Undeceived. Think about that.

You could try to be noble and say "If God did not treat the Canaanites like He has treated me, I will go on strike and reject His gifts" but would you be truthful? Is that really the reason you turn your face from your Creator?

I don't believe that such a god exists, or ever existed. However, when I judge him as a character, I see that he is portrayed as a vengeful, petty psychopath, who on top of that is also a hypocrite. I don't buy him as a hero, let alone the source of everything that is good and just.

A character could be portrayed as a hero and fail at that. Let's say that JK Rowling wanted us to buy Harry Potter as a paldin of justice, but then had him kill innocents left and right. I'd say that if that was the case, she'd have utterly failed at her job.

I think that the god of the Old Testament was written in the way it was written because the Jews felt that they were right no matter what they did, even if what they did was wiping out the Canaanite. Their god was always going to side with them unless they stopped praying him.

So no, I'm not trying to be noble. I'm simply trying to make people understand that their god is not the source of their morality, that they're better than their god, and that therefore they should think about their moral choices and about the relationships between their religious beliefs and their moral compass.

I'm not turning my face from my creator, because there's no creator from which I can turn my face.

[Ryantology]

You could try to be noble and say "Since God did not treat the Canaanites like He promises to treat me, I will go on strike and reject His gifts" but would you be truthful? Is that really the reason you turn your face from your Creator?

It is not my fault that God could only choose to 'forgive' by submitting his 'son' to a horrifying death. That is no 'gift'. That's revolting. A being who can do anything can only do it that way?

Do you realize how much easier the theist's job would be if you dropped the omni-qualities of God? You'd have no more luck proving that there is a God at all, but it'd be easier to swallow if God was portrayed as a fuck-up who is trying to improve. If you insist that he is all-knowing and all-capable, then he falls miserably short of even the most wicked and cruel human's concept of morality.

I don't turn my face from God because I can't turn away from something which does not exist. But, if he did, I'd turn my face anyway, because for all my failings, shortcomings, and flaws of character, I am still a better person than God.

[The Grand Nudger]

A character could be portrayed as a hero and fail at that. Let's say that JK Rowling wanted us to buy Harry Potter as a paldin of justice, but then had him kill innocents left and right. I'd say that if that was the case, she'd have utterly failed at her job.

Ah, but who likes a fucking goody two shoes. The slaughtering paladin has more depth, and as a character in a narrative it becomes that much more compelling. The fallen hero, the paradoxical protagonist. LOL, early film noir maybe? Keeps us munching popcorn, filling seats, and reading books....................

[Kirbmarc]

it'd be easier to swallow if God was portrayed as a fuck-up who is trying to improve

True. But even in that case, he wolud have a lot to atone for. Multiple accounts of genocide aren't a simple screw up.

The slaughtering paladin has more depth, and as a character in a narrative it becomes that much more compelling.

But even a fallen hero has some dignity left, some ideal that he fights for, no matter how warped. At worst, a compelling villain still has some style, some admirable qualities about him. Otherwise, he'd just be a common jerk, who isn't very interesting.

The god of the Bible isn't a compelling, morally grey anti-hero/anti-villain. He's a prick who kills out of jealousy.

He's not a Sam Spade, or even a Frank Castle. He's not even as suave as an Hannibal Lecter, or as clever as a Moriarty. He's Biff Tannen: childish, petty, ignorant and arrogant.

[Ryantology]

it'd be easier to swallow if God was portrayed as a fuck-up who is trying to improve

True. But even in that case, he wolud have a lot to atone for. Multiple accounts of genocide aren't a simple screw up.

No, but how does a God atone?

You could say that his easing of restrictions and (relative to the OT) conciliatory manner would constitute some form of atonement, even if "I'll never be a murderous psycho to you again" is admittedly poor atonement.

[Kirbmarc]

No, but how does a God atone?

Well, hypothetically (since we're talking fiction here) he could do so much more.

Cure cancer, or every other delibitating, life-threatening illness (or at least, since he's omniscient, give us a cure). Prevent people from dying from hurricanes and earthquakes (by warning them, if he doesn't feel like stopping earthquakes and hurricanes altogether). Even if he's not ominipotent or omniscient, he should have the power to cure the ill or see the future, otherwise he'd be a sad excuse for a god.

The fact that he doesn't bother to do even that means that his "atonement" is shallow and meaningless.