Theists, some questions

[Bad Writer]

Xtians love dodging the ol' "would you kill someone if god commanded you to do so?" question. How do you expect to have an honest conversation if you can't answer a serious question like this? Your failure to answer keeps you looking like a religious schmuck.

[TheBeardedDude]

Xtians love dodging the ol' "would you kill someone if god commanded you to do so?" question. How do you expect to have an honest conversation if you can't answer a serious question like this? Your failure to answer keeps you looking like a religious schmuck.

Right, let's put this back on track GR

Would you?

[Tonus]

Once again, you drag God down to the place of men. Morality is here to help humans interact with each other in a way that is best for everyone. The morals for Man are absolute.

Remember the immortal soul.

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that since god is so superior to humans, his actions cannot be judged by humans and therefore his actions are moral by definition. Humans may be subject to absolute morals, but not god. That is one way to see the issue.

Then you explain that god's killing of innocents is not immoral because he can effectively "make it right" (or even make it better) due to his command of the gift of life and consciousness. That's different, because it narrows it to one specific act, and then we'd need to justify any other absolute morals, such as "lying to someone who has a right to the truth." If god committed this act, is it immoral for him to do so, or is it moral because god is above human morals, or is there some way that he can make such a situation right that humans cannot?

My impression is that most Christians here see it as the former; that god, as the supreme power of the universe and creator of all that exists, has free reign over his creation and cannot be judged by that creation. For some, the rationalization ends there, while others point out that there is an element of "might makes right."

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I disagree, we are directly involved, but it is through participation. We hold no jurisdiction over the creation of our children. Just because you want a child does not mean you get one. This proves lack of jurisdiction.

It proves no such thing. All it proves it that the chances of conception are less than 100%.

Using that logic, the simple fact that I have to be involved in the process means that it cannot be under the jurisdiction of god.

If you use this argument you can no longer turn to the 'Problem of Pain' argument because you are saying that He is not responsible for disease and hunger or any sort of death (that doesn't come directly from His hand).

I agree. I would only hold god accountable for those deaths that were caused by his intervention.

When you can show me a synthetic soul with free will, I'll be more impressed. But that is pretty amazing. Thanks for the share.

When you can show me a "natural" soul - with or without free will - I will happily deep fry my own testicles

[GodsRevolt]

Xtians love dodging the ol' "would you kill someone if god commanded you to do so?" question. How do you expect to have an honest conversation if you can't answer a serious question like this? Your failure to answer keeps you looking like a religious schmuck.

Right, let's put this back on track GR

Would you?

I'm quoting myself now . . . ?

OK, I'll take this bait.

If God said that I had to kill someone and I was 100% sure that it was God telling me to do it . . .

God is in the unique position to KNOW 100% what needs to be done. For instance, if you were in the position to where you absolutely, 100% knew that your neighbor was going to blow up the world tomorrow unless you burned his house down with him inside (assuming that was the only way to stop him), would you? It would be irresponsible not to, right?

When someone has 100% knowledge of what needs to be done, you listen. It does not mean that you have to be happy about it. Jonah was not happy about what God asked him to do, and probably the better example would be Abrahams reluctance to kill his own son. Isaac was not really thrilled about it either.

OK, bring it on . . .

Yes. And I'm sure I've said it a couple times, "When God speaks, you listen."

Can I get an apology for the schmuck comment?

---

It proves no such thing. All it proves it that the chances of conception are less than 100%.

Using that logic, the simple fact that I have to be involved in the process means that it cannot be under the jurisdiction of god.

You don't have to be involved. Children come about everyday without your knowledge.

I agree. I would only hold god accountable for those deaths that were caused by his intervention.

Alright, would you hold God accountable for the creation of life to begin with? Any credit there?

When you can show me a "natural" soul - with or without free will - I will happily deep fry my own testicles

I'll hold you to that

[TheBeardedDude]

Right, let's put this back on track GR

Would you?

I'm quoting myself now . . . ?

OK, I'll take this bait.

If God said that I had to kill someone and I was 100% sure that it was God telling me to do it . . .

God is in the unique position to KNOW 100% what needs to be done. For instance, if you were in the position to where you absolutely, 100% knew that your neighbor was going to blow up the world tomorrow unless you burned his house down with him inside (assuming that was the only way to stop him), would you? It would be irresponsible not to, right?

When someone has 100% knowledge of what needs to be done, you listen. It does not mean that you have to be happy about it. Jonah was not happy about what God asked him to do, and probably the better example would be Abrahams reluctance to kill his own son. Isaac was not really thrilled about it either.

OK, bring it on . . .

Yes. And I'm sure I've said it a couple times, "When God speaks, you listen."

Can I get an apology for the schmuck comment?

---

It proves no such thing. All it proves it that the chances of conception are less than 100%.

Using that logic, the simple fact that I have to be involved in the process means that it cannot be under the jurisdiction of god.

You don't have to be involved. Children come about everyday without your knowledge. :wink-shades:

I agree. I would only hold god accountable for those deaths that were caused by his intervention.

Alright, would you hold God accountable for the creation of life to begin with? Any credit there?

When you can show me a "natural" soul - with or without free will - I will happily deep fry my own testicles
:wink-shades:

I'll hold you to that :D

You didn't answer, schmuck.

[GodsRevolt]

Once again, you drag God down to the place of men. Morality is here to help humans interact with each other in a way that is best for everyone. The morals for Man are absolute.

Remember the immortal soul.

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that since god is so superior to humans, his actions cannot be judged by humans and therefore his actions are moral by definition. Humans may be subject to absolute morals, but not god. That is one way to see the issue.

Then you explain that god's killing of innocents is not immoral because he can effectively "make it right" (or even make it better) due to his command of the gift of life and consciousness. That's different, because it narrows it to one specific act, and then we'd need to justify any other absolute morals, such as "lying to someone who has a right to the truth." If god committed this act, is it immoral for him to do so, or is it moral because god is above human morals, or is there some way that he can make such a situation right that humans cannot?

My impression is that most Christians here see it as the former; that god, as the supreme power of the universe and creator of all that exists, has free reign over his creation and cannot be judged by that creation. For some, the rationalization ends there, while others point out that there is an element of "might makes right."

This is not, "might makes right." This is "God created you, knows you for who you are and who you could be, and knows what is best for you even before you know it."

---

I'm quoting myself now . . . ?


Yes. And I'm sure I've said it a couple times, "When God speaks, you listen."

Can I get an apology for the schmuck comment?

You didn't answer, schmuck.

Bold and underline added.

Apology? Just between two gentlemen? That's alright. I've already forgiven you. God told me to.

---

Right, let's put this back on track GR

Would you?

As a side note, is that video in your signature Tre Cool?

[Bad Writer]

I'm glad you answered, GR. But realize that an apology is not necessary; you are posting on a forum, and not everyone remembers every one of your posts. So if you have answered something and the question gets posed to you again, the courteous thing to do is to immediately direct that person to your original post instead of getting all uppity and dodging the question. We tend to call people out on acting like schmucks.

[Esquilax]

This is a fallacy.

Just because there are rules to follow does not mean that there are no morals. There is no connection here.

There is a connection if you believe everything god says must necessarily be moral; if you're going to automatically assume everything god says is morally justified, then you have no morals but what god tells you, and if god tells you something immoral- baby killing!- then you're bound to consider it moral regardless.

Orders are not 'in and of themselves' immoral. They can go either way. Choosing to follow orders is not an intrinsically immoral action either.

Sure, but if your view is that, because god says this, it is moral, then you've divorced yourself from having any kind of moral conversation. You said it yourself: to you, "almighty makes right." So my question to you was, would you kill someone if ordered to by god. If you would, then you are clearly immoral, and our conversation is over. If you wouldn't, then you're demonstrating my point: morality has no connection with what god says, and at most, he's a messenger.

Because I get the feeling you blanch at the idea of murdering someone, on god's orders or not. Is that just down to the sin in your heart, or do you actually have a moral system that transcends the dictates of someone else, powerful or not?

Are you suggesting that because you make your own rules in life you are more righteous then me? Because, if you are, then for me to be AS righteous as you I would have to follow YOUR rules, which would mean I would be taking orders again. No win for me, all righteousness for you.

I'm saying I'm more moral for assessing situations and dealing with them in accordance with an independent set of morals and physical facts, than the person who considers something moral because "god sez." I'm saying it's not a matter of a set of rules at all, but what's moral in a given context, scenario, and set of physical laws. You're opting to be blind to that, because the voice in your head decided something else.

[Tonus]

This is not, "might makes right." This is "God created you, knows you for who you are and who you could be, and knows what is best for you even before you know it."

Just to be clear, this is why we cannot judge god's actions as immoral, even if the action in question is absolutely immoral for a human?