James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[DogmaHunter]

I owe you an apology. I missed post 280. I’ve now read it, and you didn’t answer the question. You only responded to the post.

Let me see if I can guess what your answer would be, based on your responses and you can tell me if I’m correct or not.

Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back?

You say because it is.

Am I correct?

I don't understand how you can read that post and then miss the answer completely.

The reason why it would be immoral for your god, is the exact same reason why it would be immoral for you.

Because morality is about behaviour. Not about who engages in said behaviour.

 

[Hammster]

I don't understand how you can read that post and then miss the answer completely.

The reason why it would be immoral for your god, is the exact same reason why it would be immoral for you.

Because morality is about behaviour. Not about who engages in said behaviour.

I don’t create life. I’m not sovereign over it. So how can it be wrong for the same reasons?

 

[Hammster]

---Staff Edit---
It’s wrong if man murders man. It’s not wrong if God takes his life since He is sovereign over His creation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It’s wrong if man murders man

Why?

It’s not wrong if God takes his life since He is sovereign over His creation.

How/why does "sovereing over creation" impact the morality of actions?

So your God simply isn't bound to ANY moral rules whatsoever?


To come back to my question of a hundred posts ago that you refused to answer: does that mean that your god is incapable of doing something immoral? Note that I'm not asking if he would. I'm asking if he COULD.

Because it reall does sound like you are saying that he's incapable (in the sense that, whatever god does - it's never immoral 'cause god, whatever it is that he's doing).

If that's the case, then god is amoral. Not moral. Not benevolent. And most certainly NOT the very standard of morality.

Then god literally has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

 

[Hammster]

Why?



How/why does "sovereing over creation" impact the morality of actions?

So your God simply isn't bound to ANY moral rules whatsoever?


To come back to my question of a hundred posts ago that you refused to answer: does that mean that your god is incapable of doing something immoral? Note that I'm not asking if he would. I'm asking if he COULD.

Because it reall does sound like you are saying that he's incapable (in the sense that, whatever god does - it's never immoral 'cause god, whatever it is that he's doing).

If that's the case, then god is amoral. Not moral. Not benevolent. And most certainly NOT the very standard of morality.

Then god literally has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

You bring up moral rules. Where do these rules come from?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You bring up moral rules. Where do these rules come from?

I will explain, as soon as you address the points I raised over a hundred posts ago and which I just repeated in the post you are replying to.

Specifically the point about your god not being moral or benevolent, but amoral instead.

Is there any action that if done by your god, would be immoral? If yes, name an example and explain. If no, explain also.

 

[Hammster]

I will explain, as soon as you address the points I raised over a hundred posts ago and which I just repeated in the post you are replying to.

Specifically the point about your god not being moral or benevolent, but amoral instead.

Is there any action that if done by your god, would be immoral? If yes, name an example and explain. If no, explain also.

I answered this, but maybe not to you.

Whatever God does is good.

 

[bling]

I did, but it is unfortunately not relevant.

You either go to heaven or hell. If the mode or conclusion rests upon either accepting Christ when known, or getting a free pass, because it was never presented, both parties STILL end up in the same place --> heaven.

And once the 'earthly body' is striped away, you are all equal in heaven anyways, so no preparations needed or required. A murderer whom repents, a practicing Christian, and a tribesman in the remote part of Africa (never hearing of such a story), are all subject to the same utopian arena anew...

You do not understand Godly type Love which is hugely significant.

Heaven is like one huge Love Feast, but the only type of “love” is this unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial type of Love way beyond something you can, learn, develop, deserve, or pay back. Most people want to be “loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be and really do not like the Love a murder can receive equally. Adults do not like to be humbly accepting charity, but small children will easily so we must enter the Kingdom as children with God providing only charity to us.

There is another reason I need to go out and teach others who are wanting to know about Christ and that is to help me value God’s love as I see it joyfully accepted by others. If I quit growing in God’s Love, I start to wither (seeking carnal love) and could get to the point of giving up God’s Love (I do not care about it anymore), so heaven with only Godly type Love is not where I want to be.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hold up there. When and where did I supposedly claim that?
Please don't lie about what I did and didn't claim.

Lie? Really? Have you not claimed there is no reason for you to believe that God exists?

You shoot yourself in the foot here. Because in this case, it was the "biblical standard" that allowed for it.

If God doesn't exist and doesn't have omniscience then we do just have a group of people that are either delusional or immoral or both. Throughout history there has been horrific actions by groups of people who were delusional or immoral. I on the other hand believe that God is omniscience and knows each of those people that were killed. Knew exactly what they were capable of and what they would do if they were not stopped. We as human beings do not have that ability and have no way of knowing what would have happened if they had all lived. So we can not know if it was immoral or not. Death is like walking through a door into another room. For children, they all go through the door into heaven or the presence of God. So the giver of life, takes those children back to where they came from.

I'll go further and submit that only irrational beliefs would allow for such things without them being recognised as immoral.

There is no rational worldview that can excuse the massive slaughter of toddlers.

So if the United States was to be forewarned of an immediate nuclear attack that would kill us all including our infants, toddlers and children of all ages and we had the absolute knowledge of this attack and we attacked first would that be immoral?

Yes, a case an be made that back in the day, people might not have known better. Unsurprising since back in the day, society was infested with all kinds of irrational beliefs.

But today, we DO know better.
Knowledge of the world, is an important/required aspect of moral evaluation.

Today since when? What do you mean by today? And how is it that you feel society was infested with all kinds of irrational beliefs back when but not in our century? Did you forget about Hitler perhaps? Or maybe Mao? Or even Serbia?

If you don't understand the consequences of your actions, or the nature of reality, then it becomes impossible to make correct moral evaluations about those subjects.

Unsurprisingly, many of the mass murders of innocents came about by moral superiority of one group to another so moral evaluations can and do go awry. Hitler felt a moral duty to rid the world of Jews for instance.

So, I guess you are saying that your God, didn't know any better either.
It's almost like the morality found in that book, reflects the morality of the primitive people that conjured it. Which is exactly what I would expect, as an atheist.

When answering a post that was meant for someone else and in relation to what was being said in that conversation, you should really read the context to know what is being discussed. I said what I said in regard to what he said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes we do.
When the conquistadores arrived in the America's, none of them knew about Jesus.
In fact, none of them even knew about humans at the other side of the waters.

So? That doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't make His existence known to who He desires to.

If they DID know about Jesus, now that would have been remarkable.
But they didn't.

I didn't claim they did.

One only knows about Jesus when another human tells you that story or hands you that book.

I was just giving an example of someone who had not any encounter with anyone or anything about Jesus but Jesus had revealed Himself to him.

I know of a case where anecdotes are just anecdotes without any value whatsoever.

"a man" on "an island".
Yes, that's not vague at all.
That so convinces me.

I didn't expect it to convince anyone. I was giving my opinion and giving an example of an instance of what was relevant.

Yes. Don't think to much about the hard questions.

How ironic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It seems to me that the opposite is true.

Instead of putting in measures to prevent it, it seems he rather put in measures to make sure it actually happened.

First, he creates clueless humans. "Clueless" in the sense of not knowing right from wrong and being some kind of blank slates.

Then he puts a tree in the middle of their home with nice looking fruit and tells them not to touch it. Like putting candy in from of a 3-year old that he can't touch. I have a 3-year old: I guarantee you that eventually, he'll take the candy.

On top of it all, he also allows the very embodiment of evil in said garden, who's free to talk to them and try and get them to eat the fruit anyways.

That would be like putting a baby sitter next to that toddler who can't touch the candy, who keeps telling the toddler that it's okay to eat the candy.

What did you think was going to happen?

How is this "taking measures to prevent it"?
Taking such measures would rather be, NOT putting the candy there or at the very least, not allowing someone in there who keeps telling the toddler that it's okay to eat the candy - and of whom you actually KNOW would make it a sport to make the toddler eat the candy.

So, I suggest that the very opposite of your claim is true.
He didn't put in measures to prevent it. Instead, he did everything he could to make it happen, short of himself saying they should eat the fruit.

The entire story reads like a gigantic trap. They never really stood a chance.

So then you believe that there is a universal, objective moral standard?

 

[Chriliman]

An all powerfull, all intelligent, all knowing being did something and then..... was sorry?

Sounds incredibly self-contradicting.

I justify my belief by saying it was good of God to create human's who can freely choose to listen to him or not. I believe he knew it was possible that they'd disobey. I'm also not necissarily convinced that it all went down exactly as described in Genesis, I tend to view that story as more of an allegory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lie? Really? Have you not claimed there is no reason for you to believe that God exists?

Yes. Which is NOT the same as what you previously said, which was: "IF there is no God as you claim,".

Expressing having no reason to believe a claim, is not the same as claiming the opposite!

If God doesn't exist and doesn't have omniscience

Kind of hard to have omniscience if you don't exist, off course.

Throughout history there has been horrific actions by groups of people who were delusional or immoral. I on the other hand believe that God is omniscience and knows each of those people that were killed. Knew exactly what they were capable of and what they would do if they were not stopped.

Here's the thing.... those people you are talking about who you recognise as doing horrific things, like infanticide, a lot of them believed to act on behalf of God as well.

Who are you then, to tell label them immoral?

We as human beings do not have that ability and have no way of knowing what would have happened if they had all lived. So we can not know if it was immoral or not. Death is like walking through a door into another room. For children, they all go through the door into heaven or the presence of God.

So having an abortion, really is doing the unborn a favor then? They all get straight to heaven.

So the giver of life, takes those children back to where they came from.

No, the "giver of life" isn't taking anyone anywhere. The people believing to act out the will of their god, are killing those children.

So if the United States was to be forewarned of an immediate nuclear attack that would kill us all including our infants, toddlers and children of all ages and we had the absolute knowledge of this attack and we attacked first would that be immoral?

False analogy.
The bible infanticide wasn't collateral damage. It was a literal instruction, to invade the land and leave nothing alive - not even toddlers and cattle (yes, grouped together in the same breath). Except virgin girls.

The equivalent of this would be the US invading Syria to destroy ISIS, with literal instructions to also slaughter their babies and toddlers.

We call that genocide / infantacide and crimes of war, crimes against humanity.
It's about the worst thing you can engage in.

Today since when?

Today, as a result of the gradual increase in knowledge about the world, human nature, etc over the course of history.

What do you mean by today?

Not sure how that word confuses you.

And how is it that you feel society was infested with all kinds of irrational beliefs back when but not in our century? Did you forget about Hitler perhaps? Or maybe Mao? Or even Serbia?

Ironically, Hitler said in Mein Kampf that he believed to be doing the Lord's work. That Lord he refered to, was Jesus btw....

But yes, each of these monsters held less irrational beliefs then back in those days. Each of these understood that gods didn't rule the tides and that getting cured from the flu doesn't require a sacrifice to the gods.

I didn't say that humans today are incapable of irrational beliefs.
I said that irrational beliefs back then were a lot more common. Society was "infested" by it. Our society today, isn't. At least not to that degree.

Unsurprisingly, many of the mass murders of innocents came about by moral superiority of one group to another so moral evaluations can and do go awry. Hitler felt a moral duty to rid the world of Jews for instance.

And he motivated that with christianity, regardless of what christians try to claim about him. Obviously they haven't read Mein Kampf. Granted, the book is hard to come by.

But sure, theism doesn't have exclusivity on irrationality or doing evil while believing to doing good.

Here's the thing though... on moral terms, you can actually give a reasoned argument as to why something is moral or not. Or you can take the arguments of facists / racists and expose the flawed premises or fallacious reasoning.

Reasoned morality is explainable. 'divine morality' is limited to "because (i believe) god says so!".

The "reasoning" of the islamic terrorist, is identical to your reasoning of god commanded infantacide.

When answering a post that was meant for someone else and in relation to what was being said in that conversation, you should really read the context to know what is being discussed. I said what I said in regard to what he said.

Cool.

Doesn't change my point though.
The morality found in that book, reflects the morality of the barbaric society that conjured it.

Which is exactly what I would expect, as an atheist.

 

[bling]

Then the best way to prevent souls from ending up in hell, is to keep silent about christianity and have it become lost in the pages of history.



Why would that matter, if the goal is to end up in an eternal paradise?

If you’re not going to be “happy” in heaven why would you want to go there?

“Paradise” maybe something different than what you think it is.

You do not understand Godly type Love which is hugely significant.

Heaven is like one huge Love Feast, but the only type of “love” is this unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial type of Love way beyond something you can, learn, develop, deserve, or pay back. Most people want to be “loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be and really do not like the Love a murder can receive equally. Adults do not like to be humbly accepting charity, but small children will easily so we must enter the Kingdom as children with God providing only charity to us.

There is another reason I need to go out and teach others who are wanting to know about Christ and that is to help me value God’s love as I see it joyfully accepted by others. If I quit growing in God’s Love, I start to wither (seeking carnal love) and could get to the point of giving up God’s Love (I do not care about it anymore), so heaven with only Godly type Love is not where I want to be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not hating. I'm just saying that it makes no sense.

...it may be that you think you're "just saying that it makes no sense" and if that's really the case, then I can empathize with you.

But on my side of it, it often looks like there's a Vendetta being laid out by some Ex-christian individuals, along with their plain ol' vanilla non-Christian compatriots, against Christianity on the whole.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So? That doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't make His existence known to who He desires to.

Neither does it mean that extra-dimensional unicorns don't make their existance known to those who desire it.

But the matter of the fact is that we have no examples of people who know about Jesus, without them having a link to people who know about Jesus/the bible.

It just doesn't happen. Every remote people in the world that never had any contact with humans that know about Jesus, simply don't know about Jesus.

I didn't claim they did.

But you did imply it as a possibility. The thing is, you don't seem to have a valid reason to consider it a possibility. The evidence suggests that isn't really a possibility.

I was just giving an example of someone who had not any encounter with anyone or anything about Jesus but Jesus had revealed Himself to him.

You gave no such example.

I didn't expect it to convince anyone. I was giving my opinion and giving an example of an instance of what was relevant.

It's not an example if you can't show it being real.
You made a baseless claim, that was as vague as it was baseless.
That does not an example make.

How ironic.

How so?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It’s only meaningless if I adopt your worldview, which I will not do.

Not my wordview. But just the general definitions of "moral" and "immoral".
And the basic idea that moral only makes sense if you can contrast it with immoral.

Consider light and dark.
What does dark mean, if light doesn't exist?

It's useless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So then you believe that there is a universal, objective moral standard?

I believe the words "moral" and "immoral" have a specific meaning as a label of behaviour. And that "all" it takes to make a moral evaluation of something, is to contrast it to said meaning.

It is objective within the confines of that definition.

So yes, purely by definition of the words "moral" and "immoral", and by our knowledge of psychology of humans and human development, I can say that it is objectively immoral to engage in infanticide.

I'm putting it simplisticly so that it is clear.

Theist apologists in this thread seem to be saying that inflicting the worst possible suffering imaginable on sentient beings, can be a moral thing to do.

I submit that these people are morally bankrupt if they truelly believe that (and I don't think they do - or at least, I hope they don't.....).

If you say that such a thing can be moral, then I have NO IDEA what you mean when you use the word "moral". ("you" - talking in general, not necessarily you specifically)

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you’re not going to be “happy” in heaven why would you want to go there?

I think anyone would be happier there then in the alternative eternal torture chambers.
Although I'll grant that it's very likely that the more interesting folks would likely be in those torture chambers

“Paradise” maybe something different than what you think it is.

I have no particular thoughts on the matter.
It's kind of hard to have such, since I get about the same amount of definitions thereof as the amount of theists I encounter.

Heaven is like one huge Love Feast, but the only type of “love” is this unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial type of Love way beyond something you can, learn, develop, deserve, or pay back. Most people want to be “loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be and really do not like the Love a murder can receive equally. Adults do not like to be humbly accepting charity, but small children will easily so we must enter the Kingdom as children with God providing only charity to us.

My woman keeps telling me that I'm still like a 10-year old boy in lots of ways, so I guess I'm good then.

There is another reason I need to go out and teach others who are wanting to know about Christ and that is to help me value God’s love as I see it joyfully accepted by others.

Here's the thing though.... following all these previous points, you're actually dooming a lot more to eternal torture then you are saving.
Not so "joyfull" it seems to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...it may be that you think you're "just saying that it makes no sense" and if that's really the case, then I can empathize with you.

But on my side of it, it often looks like there's a Vendetta being laid out by some Ex-christian individuals, along with their plain ol' vanilla non-Christian compatriots, against Christianity on the whole.

Ow, make no mistake. I absolutely loath christianity. And I am happily unapologetic about that.

I think christianity as a worldview is rotten to its very core and quite damaging if indoctrinated into it from a young age, especially concerning fundamentalist experience thereof.

I "hate" the religion. I think it's ranked right up there along with the worst ideas any human ever had.

But I don't hate the followers. Not at all.

There's a big difference.