The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[robvalue]

Rights are granted. Who has granted the right to God, to do whatever he wants? Certainly not us.

If he can just do whatever, and we've gotta suck it up and pretend it's righteous because it's him, that's a really lousy system. Replace him with an evil (more evil) version, and you're still defending him.

This is "might makes right", nothing more.

[Lek]

Rights are granted. Who has granted the right to God, to do whatever he wants? Certainly not us.

If he can just do whatever, and we've gotta suck it up and pretend it's righteous because it's him, that's a really lousy system. Replace him with an evil (more evil) version, and you're still defending him.

This is "might makes right", nothing more.

This is why I stated in a previous post that you are not an atheist because you think God is mean, but rather because you don't have proof that he exists..  You are saying that God has no right to tell us what to do, but if you did believe in him, then you would think he had that right.  So we're attacking or defending different gods.  You can't argue about whether God is good or bad, or right or wrong, unless you're talking about the same God.  If we are to discuss the God of christianity, then in order to have a constructive discussion, we must discuss the God of christianity.  He who is the potter and has the right to do with the clay and the pot what he wishes.  The God of the christian bible does.  So saying that the christian God has the right to do whatever he wants is a valid defense.

[robvalue]

Erm, no I wouldn't. If I believed there was this amazingly powerful thing, Christian God or otherwise, I wouldn't think it had the right to do whatever he wants. Why would I think that? I'd think it probably could do whatever it wants. That's not the same thing. You might grant it the right, in as far as you have the authority to; which is not representative of mankind, or universe-kind.

So I'm afraid you're wrong there.

I can do whatever I want to the people I fathered and have locked in my basement. That doesn't mean I have the right. If instead they gave me permission, while not under duress, then you could say I have the right maybe. But society as a whole would still have something to say about that.

It's quite lucky really that it doesn't do a damn thing; it can't without contradicting its own supposedly perfect plans and all that garbage.

[robvalue]

Maybe you're assuming that if I believed in it, I would worship and revere it. I would not. I would tell it to fuck off.

[Angrboda]

Rights are granted. Who has granted the right to God, to do whatever he wants? Certainly not us.

If he can just do whatever, and we've gotta suck it up and pretend it's righteous because it's him, that's a really lousy system. Replace him with an evil (more evil) version, and you're still defending him.

This is "might makes right", nothing more.

This is why I stated in a previous post that you are not an atheist because you think God is mean, but rather because you don't have proof that he exists..  You are saying that God has no right to tell us what to do, but if you did believe in him, then you would think he had that right.  So we're attacking or defending different gods.  You can't argue about whether God is good or bad, or right or wrong, unless you're talking about the same God.  If we are to discuss the God of christianity, then in order to have a constructive discussion, we must discuss the God of christianity.  He who is the potter and has the right to do with the clay and the pot what he wishes.  The God of the christian bible does.  So saying that the christian God has the right to do whatever he wants is a valid defense.

(underlining mine -- I think you're arguing from a personal theology here. It isn't clear to me that the God of Christianity has this right except by interpretation.)

Nowhere in the bible is there a rational defense of God having the right to do what he wants. The closest you get is Job. The clay / potter analogy is a lousy analogy. Clay isn't an autonomous being so the analogy doesn't address relevant moral points. It would be a closer analogy to say that a parent doesn't have to ask the son or daughter for permission; they can treat them however they like. And this analogy points up the flaw in the argument that God "has the right" to do whatever he wants, because no parent has cart blanche to do what they want to their children regardless of age. Where did he acquire this right? How are you defining a 'right'? These are valid questions which you're just sweeping under the rug with an analogy and some bare assertions. How do you know God has this right?

[Nihilist Virus]

I think you're all missing the point that God has the right to do what he wants to do.  He can establish laws for us to follow and he doesn't have to follow those same laws.

Congratulations, you've finally accepted that the crucifixion of Jesus was entirely pointless. There was another way for God to forgive our sins because he has the right to do whatever he wants to do. He can forgive us without sending his son to die for no reason.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you're all missing the point that God has the right to do what he wants to do.  He can establish laws for us to follow and he doesn't have to follow those same laws.

I agree, morality is subjective.

I doubt very many of your fellow Christians agree, but hey, that's between you and them.

[robvalue]

"Do as I say, not as I do"

The war cry of the hypocrite. Yes, even God can be a hypocrite.

[Lek]

(underlining mine -- I think you're arguing from a personal theology here.  It isn't clear to me that the God of Christianity has this right except by interpretation.)

Nowhere in the bible is there a rational defense of God having the right to do what he wants.  The closest you get is Job.  The clay / potter analogy is a lousy analogy.  Clay isn't an autonomous being so the analogy doesn't address relevant moral points.  It would be a closer analogy to say that a parent doesn't have to ask the son or daughter for permission; they can treat them however they like.  And this analogy points up the flaw in the argument that God "has the right" to do whatever he wants, because no parent has cart blanche to do what they want to their children regardless of age.   Where did he acquire this right?  How are you defining a 'right'?  These are valid questions which you're just sweeping under the rug with an analogy and some bare assertions.  How do you know God has this right?

Following is the clearest statement among many that declare this:

Psalm 115:3New International Version (NIV)

3 Our God is in heaven;
   he does whatever pleases him.

This verse refers to his right to do so:

Romans 9:21New International Version (NIV)

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

God has existed infinitely.  There was no one else to give him his rights.  He is the creator of all things.

Revelation 22:13New International Version (NIV)

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

This is the God of christianity.  You may disagree with what the bible says, but if you are discussing the God of the bible, this is part of how he is defined. In this case, it is a valid point for me to say that God has the right the right to do what he wants.  It is clearly one of his attributes.  It is a facet of who God is.

[robvalue]

You're justifying his right to do whatever he wants by quoting his own propaganda?

If no one is able to grant him rights, he has no rights. He just has power.

I don't even know what you think a "right" is.