If they think that his rules and morals are good simply because he is God, I really hope they do understand the nature of God. Because if they did understand the nature of God, they would also believe that he cannot piss all over us, and it would make it okay, because that would be against his nature. Therefore, those who purport that the rules and morals that are instituted in the universe are inherently "good" by whatever those methods of reasoning are, have come to the right conclusion, but through erroneous reasoning.
Like the science exams, you don't just write down the correct answer and hope to get full marks. Your answer would be considered wrong, because you did not show your methods in attaining that answer.
FrozenLiquid
I always perceived the rules of the universe to be amoral, and not good. How else could you explain the countless and needless death and suffering of innocents by natural phenomena?
the scientific answer would not be considered wrong if no justification is shown - merely unjustified. In today's educational climate, you may still get a mark or two.
These are your premises:
1) God created a set of Good Rules and Morals
2) God created humans with the capacity to be evil
Therefore, God is a bully.
Say we accept the first premise, that in order to be in God's grace we need to live a good life. The question is, was it wrong to institute these Obligations if we have the capacity to sin?
Let us clear a couple of things. Your argument of homosexuals and mentally ill serial killers is a straw man. Homosexuality is not a sin; Homosexual acts are a sin. Mental disability isn't a sin; murder is a sin on most accounts, and even if the evil act is rooted in the psychological disturbances of an individual, psychologists would argue it is too complex to simply state that it was at the fault of a psychological disorder, that situational and environmental factors played a part, and criminologists would verify this.
The capacity to be evil stems from the idea of free will. God created creatures with the gift of free will. They are allowed to do anything they want. Therefore, they are also allowed to turn from him. True, it would seem those born as homosexuals and those born mentally ill would seem at a disadvantage to obey God. But that's another fallacious notion: heterosexual acts can and usually are just as sinful as homosexual acts. A heterosexual is open to different types of disobedience (e.g polygamy) than a homosexual. Mentally ill people on the other hand, if they are incapable of loving and obeying God with a healthy capacity, are said to be judged according to their full capacity.
To say that God is a bully because we are inclined to behave sinfully is both cynical and pessimistic. Through the privilege of free will, we are given free reign to do whatever we want, though God desires us to obey Good Rules and Morals. By our own selfishness, we choose to disobey. In that light, God seems less like a bully, but we seem more like naughty children.
FrozenLiquid
Here are your premises:
1) God made us to have free will
2) Because of this "gift" everything we do is not Gods fault, despite humans being created entirely by God. There is absolutely no accountability from God to us, since the 2000 year old book that has caused division and misery absolves God of any resposibility as to why our natural desires and sexual reproductive functions have been given to us.
3) Because of some old book, then milennia of human intervention over its meaning, you condemn certain human actions as sins that will damn people to an eternal doom.
4) Other stuff in the book you should covet, like; murdering disrespectful children, beating your slaves, not eating pork, etc, gets entirely ignored.
5) Although your book says its not you who should judge others, you don't seem to mind doing just that!
I didn't think a homosexual act was the trigger point for a sin. I though homosexual thought or desire was in itself enough for a sin to be chalked up and entry to your heaven denied - as is heterosexual lust. Perhaps you have a different concept of sin to other Christians or Catholics. This isn't uncommon, since there are various interpretations over this between followers of Christ. Please don't lump homosexuality and criminality in the same sense! How would you define mental illness? Perhaps as not believing in your God?
The notion of God bullying us is entirely disconnected with any moral outlook, since bad people are not always punished and good people don't always thrive in this world. Certain natural disasters have doubtlessly killed billions of innocent children over the years. Ther are high infant mortality figures and epidemic diseases that have affected all societies, religious and otherwise. Even good Catholics are not exempt!
Again, I'll break down your argument into premises:
1) The universe sucks
2) God does not intervene
Therefore, God is a bully.
Again, let us accept the first premise, the universe sucks. Shouldn't God make this place right, then? Why has he never come to our aid? Why is it so fun for him to just sit and watch? Well, the first place to look at would be religion, but because of the stigma of religion on this board, it unfortunately is avoided. The Abrahamic religions claim that God in fact did intervene. Through the prophets, through God's Chosen People (chosen to spread the news about Yahweh, the true God, that's what it means), and for Christians, God himself coming down to show us how its done, it would be absurd to suggest God did not intervene.
However, the contention here is that God is not intervening according to what YOU would believe is sufficient. Suppose we believe this God is All Good, All Powerful, All Knowing etc. If that is the case, how is each and everyone one of us, Not All Good, Not All Powerful, Not All Knowing etc suppose to tell God what to do? It's logically fallacious for an Imperfect Being to judge the actions of a Perfect Being (assuming he is perfect. I'm arguing from the point that this discussion stems from the religions that greatly affect Western Civilization, namely Christianity and its like others). It would be absurd for an adult to take orders from a four year old, and likewise, it's absurd for God to take orders from us. He can temporarily appease us as we pray a petition, like how a four year old wants a lollipop that wouldn't be harmful if eaten on occasion. But you're asking God if you can drive his cosmic car for a second to correct things, and you're four years old. But the world sucks! Yes, it indeed does. He's told us how it will stop sucking (it's in Scripture), and to do so, we have to eat our vegetables (follow Good Rules and Morals). But there are quite a few of us who don't like eating our vegetables, aren't there? Father, what a bully you are!
FrozenLiquid
Again, here are your premises:
1) The world does suck
2) God is bigger than me
3) How could I, as a mere human, ask God why the world sucks and is not like in the bible - I bet I wouldn't even understand if God told me, so I won't bother.
4) Instead, I'll go about trying to instill the same unjustified, irrational fear in others that I feel myself.
Religion is avoided on this board? No, religion is the main discussion point of this board. Its the sole reason for this board. There are also other boards discussing particular religions here on this site. I think we can discuss all of them here in this union.
I find it absurd you say God did intervene. Where is your proof? The flood story? Are we talking about vengeful interference now or benevolent interference?
Your argument over perfection becomes circular when you see the supposed "perfection" claimed in the bible is plainly not what actually transpires. It would be lovely to think of some fluffy benevolent overseer, but when such tragedy and suffering occurs on earth, the disparity to what's been promised and what's being delivered makes rational questioning appropriate.
I'm not talking about talking orders - only about offering some explanation the gaps in the doctrine to the realities of life. A four year old should not constantly ask for lollipops, but should have a valid desire not be drowned in a tsunami.
I'm glad you do agree that the world your God created does suck. I hope your God doesn't take offense at your merely "human" opinion of your God's creation for you. I don't think the world sucks thankfully, since I'm an atheist.
I'm a Catholic. Unfortunately, I don't fit the bill. I respect God, out of Love, Awe, and Fear. Before you cherry pick that I fear God, fear without love is irrational. Love without fear is irrational. Fear and love together are completely rational. It's a digression, but think about it in your own time.
I would argue that your reading of the Bible (and Qu'ran, though you show no examples) was in error. Firstly, there's nothing worse than Hell, and it's dangerous to feed into your own ignorance. True, God does have the power to put us in Heaven or Hell. And you have, on average, 70-80 years of your life (if you live that long) to make sure you don't choose the latter. Yes, Heaven and Hell is a choice on YOUR part. You don't choose by meeting St Peter at the pearly gates and saying "Yep, Heaven looks good!", you do it by your actions throughout this life. Heaven is complete existence with God, Hell is complete existence without God. It's as simple as that. The question is, where do you want to end up?
FrozenLiquid
Love without fear is irrational? What the? Please explain your rationality here. If you believe in the wrong God, you may be worse off - come the end of your life. Most religions punish followers of false idols more harshly than people who've led morally good lives. How does Catholic "rationality" fare with these questions?:
Do you really believe that the Pope is infallible? (Especially this current one!)
Do you really think Catholic priests are closer to God than you are?
Was it really ok for the Pope to underwrite Fascism in 1936?
Log in to comment