Hypothetical Christian World

[Skavau]

This is true....

Is it?

So the senseless and arbitrary suffering is because....?

If that was His goal, then yes, this statement is also true.

If it was not God's goal then he can not be sensibly described as moral. Words have meanings regardless of how flagrantly you might wish otherwise.

He has. He even came to earth as a man and lived for some 33 years to demonstrate how much He loves us. He died for us, and rose again for us. He ascended into heaven for us. etc. etc.

This is not clear for most of the planet.

You might be convinced. I am not. The non-Christians on here are not. The non-Christians across the planet are not. There exist people, billions of them as 'pious' and religiously devoted as you are with their own convictions. They are Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Pagans, Baha'i, Jains, Buddhists amongst thousands and thousands of tribal and historical beliefs. They are not deserving of retribution, of torment for believing and living how they believe they ought to. They are ultimately no different than you.

Not if He is superintending the whole process while at the same time allowing men to exercise their God given abilities, talents, and intellect.

His presidency is somewhat lacking.

The Bible makes His will known quite clearly.

Apparent. Is this why there are thousands of Christian denominations?

That would be true only if everyone willed to acknowledge Him as Creator. But this is clearly not the case. For in this very forum, several men have already confessed that even if they were convinced God did exist, they would still not worship, reverence, honor, or even acknowledge Him as Creator and Lord.

Irrelevant.

Whether we would or would not show reverence or adulation towards God has nothing to do with whether or not we would believe in him.

At any rate, I'd be inclined to show some kind of reverence for a God that prevented non-human suffering and instituted no torment, fiery or otherwise for those who did not praise him.

It is only the God you describe and his characteristics that people like me detest. I hope I'm there when the why of that finally dawns on you.

That cannot happen at the present for several obvious reasons, namely, that the wicked have not been removed from the earth and judged for their wickedness. That in no way implies that it will never happen however.

Of course, we all know that you think to be "wicked" really means to be human. We all know that our "wickedness" is merely a product of us being born with a specific propensity towards self-interest and survival that can sometimes contradict with the welfare of others. If God did not want us to be drawn that way he should not have allowed us to be born such as we were.

If righteousness was really all about virtue then the criterion for salvation would not be belief based.

Hmm... just-right rocks...

If you think the presence of a few "just-right rocks" is indicative of intelligent design then I suggest you get your standards checked. This would be like praising the existence of an edible spot of primarily gone-off bread.

The small portion of the universe we know about and can observe through the lens of telescopes and machinery does not constitute the "universe" my friend.

Sure.

So is there anything that indicates a considerable amount of life beyond what we can observe?

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

And as a Christian you believe that you deserve eternal bliss with that judge, whereas the rest of us deserve eternal damnation. Have I got that right?

No. (Sorry to disappoint you)

What. God has "limited his power"? Why? How? How are you aware of this? What was his power before? What is it now? Under what conditions will he restore his power? If he has the ability to restore that power, is he not still all-powerful? Excuse my questions, but I have honestly never heard this before, and it literally sounds like something out of a comic book.

Forgive me, but haven't I seen you claim to have some familiarity with Christianity? How is it you are totally unaware of the most basic elements?

Can God lie?
Does He fail?
Does He change?
Does He currently have dominion over the earth, or everything in it?

Every one of these things, the Bible is quite clear on.

So what is bigger than this God? I mean, there is God, everything knowable to God, and what else? What is that else a part of? If you get my question...

Not sure I do get at what you're driving at, but God is revealed as being "most powerful." The idea of "bigger than God" does not compute. If His Presence is omnipresent, isn't that the same as Him having no size? I don't think there is any way to apply the concept of "size" to God

My friend prayed to god to save his only daughter from a horrible, ravaging, painful cancer. God did not intervene.

Correction: He did not do what you wanted Him to, as though He were your puppet on a string. What He may or may not have done in this situation is unknown to all of us here, and you have no way of knowing if it might be for the best as it actually happened. At the same time I am well aware that suffering sucks; we are all in the same boat.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

For the love of Bruce Dickenson, not this again.

What does Iron Maiden have to do with this?

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Not really: you now believe in a capricious and impotent deity.

No I don't and that doesn't even follow. The only thing you reveal is the limitation of your own understanding.

And yet, this is meaningless to those who are suffering.

Not at all! In fact, Jesus' most major suffering reveals quite a bit about this aspect of things ...

Does this apply to rapists, too? Or does God only get the credit from good deeds?

Good, as it is being used by you? No. Good, from God's perspective, yes. God has character: there are things He will and won't do. You are demonstrating complete unfamiliarity with those specifics, and for all I know you may be completely incapable of perceiving any such things. Surely you are aware that different people have different abilities, and just because someone isn't as capable as you are re: your strengths, doesn't mean they are incompetent generally?

Such differences between individuals makes life interesting, and nowhere does this difference seem to be more glaring than in the Spiritual realm. Many suggest this is where the future of human evolution lies.

Of course I can: these things still happen, so clearly there is no supernatural being stepping in to stop them.

Somehow I think the difference between Newtonian and quantum mechanics is analogous here; there is more involved than you are aware of.

If God has decided to limit his own power, then what good is he? If God is so capricious that he is willing to stand by and allow things like rape, then how is he worthy of worship?

You keep tossing that capricious word around - capriciously. If the book of Job tells us anything, it is that you are on thin ice doing that.

And he is dispensing none of it. You believe in a God who can't and won't intervene to alleviate suffering, and I don't believe God even exists. Whoever's right, the end result is the same: God isn't helping us.

The blind man saying there is no rainbow

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

So your religion teaches that it's good that little girls get raped, because they develop character, which somehow excuses the whole thing. Gotcha.

Why is erecting such strawmen not beneath your dignity?

None. Does that somehow excuse God's inaction? Does that somehow brush over the victims' suffering? No. Ultimately, Christianity teaches that there is a being that can, but won't, help these people - and you wonder why we don't drop on bended knee to such a fiend.

Vile bile aside, you may be developing the conviction necessary to reach out to such people. If your concern is as you say, you should at least be considering it; otherwise your accusations are not only empty, but hypocritical.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You admittedly have not directly engaged in efforts to alleviate famine, nor have engaged in comforting a single rape victim.

That's right.

This suggests to me that your continual complaints of suffering are born not out of an altruistic and compassionate concern for the suffering, but born out of your desire to portray God as having some sort of moral deficiency.

Your inference is incorrect, and indeed are immaterial to the veracity of the complaint.

Despite this, the complaint is suggestive of an underlying assumption that you have that is a constituent of your view of reality.

You assume that it is wrong to not alleviate someone's suffering if they have the ability to do so.

Correct.

But for you, this view immediately presents several problems. One is that it makes you a hypocrite because you yourself are guilty of the very same thing you accuse God of being guilty of which is not alleviating the suffering of people when you have the ability to do so. You have fed no starving people in famine stricken lands nor have you comforted and consoled the suffering victims of rape. You've said you are a physicist and I assume you make enough money to be able to do what you have yet to do.

Your change in language has not gone unnoticed. At the beginning of the post, you talk about my direct help. Now, you're talking about help, either direct or indirect. There your error lies - charitable donations on my part, and research done in my field, indirectly help those suffering.

But for the sake of argument, let's agree that I am a hypocrite. Now what? Does this somehow excuse God's own inaction?

Another problem with your complaint is that you are speaking as if God is actually guilty of doing something that should never be done I.e. failing to alleviate suffering when one is able to. Now, if you are a moral relativist then you must admit that these views of yours are nothing more than opinions. You must, if you are a moral relativist, never say that God is actually really wrong for anything He does because there is no real right or wrong that exists independently of the subjective views of persons, but that right and wrong are ultimately determined by one's cultural and personal practices. If you are a moral relativist then saying that God is wrong for not alleviating suffering when He is able to do so is like saying: "I think people that wear tennis shoes are wrong for doing so if they have the ability to wear dress shoes." Its just a matter if personal preference and taste. As such, your complaints really are your expressions of distaste and nothing more.

If I am a moral relativist, sure.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am. What has changed? You, I'm guessing, aren't a moral relativist, and you believe in a deity that is somehow simultaneously loving, caring, and merciful, and can, but won't, stop children from being murdered. The contradiction that exists lies in your beliefs, not mine.

However, your persistence in repeating the same accusations of God being morally deficient suggest to me that you would have me believe that these views of yours are more than just your opinion or personal preferences. It suggests to me that you are trying to argue that God has failed in a moral duty that should be easily recognizable as being binding on a person to fulfill, regardless of their subjective views.

Is this your view?

Yes. Knowing that a child is about to be raped, but doing nothing about it, is immoral. Do you disagree?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No I don't and that doesn't even follow.

You asserted that God is not benevolent, nor is he omnipotent. If God has decided on a whim to tie his own hands so that he can't help us, then he is capricious and impotent.

Not at all! In fact, Jesus' most major suffering reveals quite a bit about this aspect of things ...

Which has done nothing to prevent suffering. Prior to Jesus' death, earthquakes hit, murders happened. And after... well, nothing changed.

Good, as it is being used by you? No. Good, from God's perspective, yes. God has character: there are things He will and won't do. You are demonstrating complete unfamiliarity with those specifics, and for all I know you may be completely incapable of perceiving any such things. Surely you are aware that different people have different abilities, and just because someone isn't as capable as you are re: your strengths, doesn't mean they are incompetent generally?

Sure, though I don't see the relevence. If God's work is seen through my hands, why isn't it seen through the hands of those who do evil? By what right does God earn credit vicariously?

Somehow I think the difference between Newtonian and quantum mechanics is analogous here; there is more involved than you are aware of.

And yet, people still get murdered, raped, and enslaved.

You keep tossing that capricious word around - capriciously. If the book of Job tells us anything, it is that you are on thin ice doing that.

You'll forgive me if I don't kowtow to threats.

The blind man saying there is no rainbow

Why is erecting such strawmen not beneath your dignity?

It's not, he really did say such things:

"This life is a training ground for the development of God like character. Not unlike the various military training grounds that exist in all the nations of the world. These training grounds have one central purpose in mind...to train people to be what they are naturally not. We naturally covet comfort, pleasure, ease and all that satisfies the flesh.

God is more concerned with our character than our comfort, our love than our laziness, our eagerness to serve than our desire for ease."

Vile bile aside, you may be developing the conviction necessary to reach out to such people. If your concern is as you say, you should at least be considering it; otherwise your accusations are not only empty, but hypocritical.

As I said to Elioenai26, let's assume that I am indeed a hypocrite. Now what? Does this excuse the charge of God's inaction? Is my inaction justification for his?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you believe in objective moral values and duties then?

Is that a yes?

Do objective moral values require a deity?

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

You asserted that God is not benevolent, nor is he omnipotent. If God has decided on a whim to tie his own hands so that he can't help us, then he is capricious and impotent.

Sorry but none of this comes from what I said. Not sure if you're just carried away with emotion or what, but this is not communication.

Sure, though I don't see the relevence. If God's work is seen through my hands, why isn't it seen through the hands of those who do evil?

Because God is not evil. Simple enough?

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

So your religion teaches that it's good that little girls get raped, because they develop character, which somehow excuses the whole thing. Gotcha.

I pointed out this was a strawman, and should be beneath your dignity, to which you replied:

It's not, he really did say such things:

"This life is a training ground for the development of God like character. Not unlike the various military training grounds that exist in all the nations of the world. These training grounds have one central purpose in mind...to train people to be what they are naturally not. We naturally covet comfort, pleasure, ease and all that satisfies the flesh.

God is more concerned with our character than our comfort, our love than our laziness, our eagerness to serve than our desire for ease."

You will notice he in no way stated nor implied what you said, so what you said is indeed a strawman. (Also your word of the day, capricious)

 

[Elioenai26]

It's absurd to suggest society can't come up with objective moral standards.

Objective moral values and duties in moral realist philosophy are values and duties that exist and are binding independently of human opinion. Therefore, by definition, objective moral values and duties are not created by a society (a collective group of culturally related individuals), but are rather discovered or learned or apprehended via various proposed means.

You've already stated you intuitively know what's right and wrong, no need to ascribe to an invisible sky being.

This is correct. It is an epistemological issue. I have never stated that one has to believe in God to know right from wrong.

As a society, we have decided it's wrong to kill others because they're of a different ethnicity. See, pretty simple.

What society are you referring to?

I can give you examples of several societies that thought genocide was right and even morally obligatory for its constituents to take part in, whether directly or indirectly.

So no, it is not pretty simple if by simple you mean that everyone agrees with your views on genocide.

 

[Elioenai26]

Do objective moral values require a deity?

I asked you if you believed that objective moral values and duties existed.

You have yet to answer the question.

So let me rephrase it supplying you with something you may understand:

If person (P) has the ability to alleviate person (P2)'s suffering and does not alleviate (P2)'s suffering, has person (P) done something objectively wrong?

I.O.W., has person (P) failed in a moral duty which person (P) had the responsibility to fulfill even if person (P) held to a view contrary to the view that a person has a moral obligation to alleviate the suffering of another if they have the ability to do so?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Objective moral values and duties in moral realist philosophy are values and duties that exist and are binding independently of human opinion. Therefore, by definition, objective moral values and duties are not created by a society (a collective group of culturally related individuals), but are rather discovered or learned or apprehended via various proposed means.
.

Can you name one moral that is independent of human opinion? Without humans as a species, there are no morals.

Circular reasoning is circular.

 

[Elioenai26]

But for the sake of argument, let's agree that I am a hypocrite. Now what? Does this somehow excuse God's own inaction?

My point is why complain about God not doing something that you will not even attempt to do?

Another point I have is that you are wrongly assuming God is not doing anything about the suffering in the world, but how could you even possibly know this?

Another point I have is that you misunderstand what it means to be a human in brightlight's hypothetical world. In this hypothetical world, men and women have the capacity for making decisions and choices based on reasoning and personal desire. Men and women have the ability to love and to hate, to accept love or reject it, to wound or to heal, to build up or to tear down. In this world, suffering should not be seen as something strange or unusual, but simply a manifestation of the consequences of men and women's actions.

Another point I have is that you completely skip over the most important aspect here, and that is a person's intent or motives. There are many instances where inflicting suffering upon someone is a good thing and the right thing to do. But you completely fail to understand that point.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am. What has changed? You, I'm guessing, aren't a moral relativist, and you believe in a deity that is somehow simultaneously loving, caring, and merciful, and can, but won't, stop children from being murdered. The contradiction that exists lies in your beliefs, not mine.

It is sad that children are murdered. God grieves more than you do I can assure you.

He spared not His only Son, who was murdered so lets not forget that point either.

You seem to be assuming that just because you cannot understand why things happen that therefore there is no good reason for God allowing them to happen. But this once again is simply an unprovable assumption. How can you possibly know that God has no good reason for allowing the things to happen that do?

Yes. Knowing that a child is about to be raped, but doing nothing about it, is immoral. Do you disagree?

Of course I agree.

God knew that children would be raped before He formed the worlds with the Word of His power. Yet He created. He knew His Son would be crucified at the hands of evil men before He created, yet He created. He knew that you would utter blasphemous words against Him in anger and hatred, yet He gave you life. I personally know of several women who were raped when they were young girls, several by members of their own family. I wish you could sit down and talk with them about how they view God and whether or not they think God is good or evil. All of them are Christians and use the experiences that they have had to help those in need who are suffering just as they have.

Does that make rape a good thing? Of course not, but God is glorified by those who put their trust in Him and look to Him for comfort. For God is the God of all comfort.

 

[Loudmouth]

I asked you if you believed that objective moral values and duties existed.

And I have answered that very question multiple times in other threads.

I asked if objective moral values require a deity since that at least relates to the topic of this thread.

You have yet to answer the question.

Yes, I have. Multiple times.

 

[Elioenai26]

Can you name one moral that is independent of human opinion?

Do you mean to ask me if I can name one moral duty or obligation which is binding upon humans independent of human opinion?

Yes I can. I can name several actually, but this one should do:

Humans should not rape young children.

Without humans as a species, there are no morals.

Circular reasoning is circular.

If you meant to say that there are no moral obligations or duties in the absence of human beings, then I agree.

 

[Elioenai26]

And I have answered that very question multiple times in other threads.

I asked if objective moral values require a deity since that at least relates to the topic of this thread.



Yes, I have. Multiple times.

I am not going to dig through old threads. A simple yes or no will do.

 

[quatona]

My point is why complain about God not doing something that you will not even attempt to do?

Because according to Christian theology God is perfect, and humans are not.
Let´s for argument´s sake say I am the worst, most immoral hypocrite of all humans - this still is no excuse for an entity that´s said to be perfect and the standard of goodness.

Another point I have is that you are wrongly assuming God is not doing anything about the suffering in the world, but how could you even possibly know this?

Because it is - by admission and doctrine of those believing in him and praising him - still there.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is why complain about God not doing something that you will not even attempt to do?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
--Epicurus

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not going to dig through old threads. A simple yes or no will do.

I am not going to repeat myself multiple times like I did in the other thread.

Does an objective morality require a deity?