How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[razzelflabben]

Morality has to do with the actions of living beings. Evolution can't by definition be immoral.

and yet the claim was that if God was "recreating" man to be without sin (paraphrased) then it would be immoral. Thus my question, how so? IOW's I agree that it would not be immoral but that does not explain why the poster in question called it amoral in the first place. So the question remains, how is it amoral?

I don't think comparing a god to humanity makes any sense at all. I think if I were to believe in a god, it would be a god that acted at least as moral as the best, not the worst, of us. Would you be content with a god that acts like the worst members of society?

okay, you stumped me again...what does this have to do with my comment that God is not about morality, but rather about justice and then I explain the difference using analogies from modern day? See, I am asking questions based on the quote I was addressing about the claim that it was immoral for God to recreate mankind. I don't see any reason to make such an assumption and I am asking why the poster would make that assumption. Yet you come and act like I said something else altogether....I'm wondering how a couple of questions can turn into all of this, they are really simple questions aren't they? How can God recreating mankind be immoral? Isn't that pretty clear of a question?

Because an omnipotent god wouldn't need to "evolve" us.

I didn't see anything in the original claim that said anything about "need" at all. that would be your post inserting into the argument something that is not there.

And if I replace the word "morality" with "loving" does your opinion change? Because sending the majority of "humans version 1.0" to everlasting torment, when it wasn't necessary to do so, isn't in any way loving to me.

My opinion? Since I never gave my opinion, which opinion would that be that you think I should change? Please be specific since I never said where I stand on the issue and you are the one asking me as if you know what I believe.

BTW, I could answer your question from the standpoint of what the Bible says if you like.

 

[quatona]

So, big G God, meaning a real God not a man made god...give me a moment to review the question so I am sure to answer it and not how I remember it...you asked...
What could a God possibly do so that you wouldn´t consider Him deserving of worship?

In clarification you are asking about a true, living God and not a man made god. I would have to say, probably not much by the very nature that a real true living God is pretty awesome if you think about it and getting on His good side would seem to be a pretty wise way to go. I mean, come on, think about it, a real, live, God, it would have to be some really seriously bad stuff for me to not worship Him, like I don't know, my mind can't even think of anything.

So, since you can´t think of anything a God could possibly do that would prevent you from considering Him worthy of worship I don´t know how your question can be answered.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I was thinking I'll get a response from the poster who's post I was commenting on.

so now, it is wrong to ask for clarification so that others can follow the conversation? Where in the forum rules is that ruling?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

and answer to the question asked would be nice rather than a post that is intent on avoiding the question...that is usually how questions and answers work.

I did answer the question. Such a being would be malevolent, and presumably malevolence is incompatible with being worthy of worship. That is, unless one worships purely out of fear.

 

[Chriliman]

All non-evidenced claims are equal. So I can say "you're wrong about all your god claims" and it holds the same weight as your god claims.

This is why we can express logic in order to convey what's true. Logic then becomes the evidence that points to what's true.

If this were not the case then we're all waisting our time trying to explain things to each other.

 

[razzelflabben]

So, since you can´t think of anything a God could possibly do that would prevent you from considering Him worthy of worship I don´t know how your question can be answered.

what could a God, a true, real, living God do that you would find unworthy of worship?

 

[razzelflabben]

I did answer the question. Such a being would be malevolent, and presumably malevolence is incompatible with being worthy of worship. That is, unless one worships purely out of fear.

Hum...so creating a hell for Satan and his demons is malevolent, and therefore incompatible with being worthy of worship...that is pretty harsh isn't it? What would I have to create for you to find me unworthy to be called human?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

what could a God, a true, real, living God do that you would find unworthy of worship?

Create a place of perpetual torment?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Again, when you say 'God creates', it's axiomatic that a process is involved and processes require time to be completed. We could be in the process (so to speak) right now. If you want to flat out deny that possibility then that's your choice, however, if you do deny it then it just looks like your in denial because it's completely logical and possible.

So you believe your god could not have created humans as intended from the outset? I have a hard time attributing the word "omnipotent" to such a god.

Or perhaps you don't believe your god is omnipotent. You wouldn't be the first to think so.

In either case, why would such a god create people destined to suffer eternally, even if the process eventually produces people that wouldn't? If I knew that as a father my first few children would suffer horribly before I got to the children that didn't, I'd think the loving thing to do would be not to have children at all...

 

[razzelflabben]

Create a place of perpetual torment?

so you are really worried about Satan and his demons being tortured for life?

 

[quatona]

what could a God, a true, real, living God do that you would find unworthy of worship?

This part of the discussion started with such an example - remember?

Anyway, if there are no standards to distinguish God´s actions from Satan´s actions...that´s an odd morality, isn´t it?

 

[Ronald]

What about all the atheists that used to be Christians? Like me for example...

Many people claim to be Christians like Hillary and Trump, "but by their fruit you will know them".
Jesus said you must be "born again" to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. There is a spiritual transformation, a cleansing. The individual is drawn to God through inward and outward callings. Basically Jesus knocks on the door of your heart and you willingly open it. He may send people into your life to invited you to church and bring you through a series of events that lead you to a moment in time when you have this Divine Appointment. At this time, you realize, because He has enabled you to do so by removing the veil of blindness and you see. You believe in Jesus based on His Word that you have either heard or read and studied and come to Him in godly sorrow an ask for forgiveness of your sins. He then takes up resident IN YOU.
ANYONE WHO IS BORN AGAIN, NEVER TURNS BACK. We all backslide, go through periods of grow -two steps forward, one back, because not only is sanctification immediate but spiritual growth is a process. God grows the fruit in you, so it takes time. And of course there are doubts along the way. But as the Sower of the Seed parable teaches us, only a person who had the seed planted in fertile soil and this seed was nourished by the Word, will grow to produce fruit and remain in Him.
Some seed is scattered on rocky soil and Satan comes along and steals it away. Some is scattered on shallow soil and the person gets excited for awhile but doesn't really nourish his seed so when trials come along, they fall away. Maybe you are one of these. Faith comes by the Word. A true Christian doesn't grudgingly study the Word just because he is commanded to. No, he loves the Word and is hunger for the Word and can't get enough. The Bible becomes precious and He grows this way as he learns about God and himself. Did you ever have this hunger for the Word? Or were you just forced by your parents to go to church and you really would have preferred not to? Maybe they said you are a Christian, but they didn't know your true feelings. Did you ever love Jesus? Because I can't imagine anyone who ever loved Jesus, who knew Jesus would ever turn away.

 

[razzelflabben]

This part of the discussion started with such an example - remember?

Anyway, if there are no standards to distinguish God´s actions from Satan´s actions...that´s an odd morality, isn´t it?

hum...so you are upset with God and refuse to worship Him because He created a place of eternal torment for Satan and his demons....I don't know, that just seems kind of warped to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so you are really worried about Satan and his demons being tortured for life?

Do you think it is acceptable to torture anyone perpetually?

 

[razzelflabben]

Do you think it is acceptable to torture anyone perpetually?

anyone, or Satan and his demons? Two different questions, you and I are talking about Satan and his demons and here you change the topic without warning. So what are we talking about now? specifically so I can follow the changing tide

 

[quatona]

hum...so you are upset with God and refuse to worship Him because He created a place of eternal torment for Satan and his demons....I don't know, that just seems kind of warped to me.

Except that´s not at all what I said.
But I can understand why you would like to dodge the actual point.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

and yet the claim was that if God was "recreating" man to be without sin (paraphrased) then it would be immoral. Thus my question, how so? IOW's I agree that it would not be immoral but that does not explain why the poster in question called it amoral in the first place. So the question remains, how is it amoral?

I said "immoral", not "amoral". Two different things.

And it would be immoral to me because during the process of "recreating" humans (which doesn't seem necessary at all given an omnipotent god), countless numbers are being sent to a hell where (depending on your theology) they might be snuffed out of existence or tortured for all eternity.

okay, you stumped me again...what does this have to do with my comment that God is not about morality, but rather about justice and then I explain the difference using analogies from modern day? See, I am asking questions based on the quote I was addressing about the claim that it was immoral for God to recreate mankind. I don't see any reason to make such an assumption and I am asking why the poster would make that assumption. Yet you come and act like I said something else altogether....I'm wondering how a couple of questions can turn into all of this, they are really simple questions aren't they? How can God recreating mankind be immoral? Isn't that pretty clear of a question?

I'm obviously not acting like you said something else altogether. I was responding to what you wrote:

"Or any more or less immoral than aborting babies or killing cops because some black punk got killed trying to avoid arrest?"

I wasn't at that point responding to what you wrote about it not being about morality. That was later in your post.

I didn't see anything in the original claim that said anything about "need" at all. that would be your post inserting into the argument something that is not there.

So let's eliminate the word "need". In the scenario given, the Christian god would have:

1. "Evolved" humans instead of creating them as a final product based on a limitation of this god and not his desires.
2. "Evolved" humans instead of creating them as a final product based on that god's desires and not his limitations.
2. "Evolved" humans instead of creating them as a final product based on both desires and limitations.

None of those options are, to me, moral or loving. They all end with people in hell.

My opinion? Since I never gave my opinion, which opinion would that be that you think I should change? Please be specific since I never said where I stand on the issue and you are the one asking me as if you know what I believe.

You specifically said:

"God isn't about morality, we talked about that, He is about justice."

That is your opinion. That is what I was commenting on.

BTW, I could answer your question from the standpoint of what the Bible says if you like.

Your own words are sufficient.

 

[razzelflabben]

Except that´s not at all what I said.
But I can understand why you would like to dodge the actual point.

the only part in the conversation I have about hell is about scripture saying that God created hell for Satan and his demons. In fact, I even said that I found anything else about the topic off topic and would not participate further. Yet you keep asking me about hell and eternal torment and etc. Since I was clear about what I was and was not willing to discuss here, any dodging or whatever else you want to falsely accuse me of is on your shoulders alone.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This is why we can express logic in order to convey what's true. Logic then becomes the evidence that points to what's true.

If this were not the case then we're all waisting our time trying to explain things to each other.

The poster I was responding to seemed to indicate that they did not have evidence to share.

 

[quatona]

the only part in the conversation I have about hell is about scripture saying that God created hell for Satan and his demons. In fact, I even said that I found anything else about the topic off topic and would not participate further. Yet you keep asking me about hell and eternal torment and etc.

No, I haven´t. I asked you a totally different question, you answered it, and I commented on your answer.