If God asks....

[Elioenai26]

It means I would reject heaven (on the point of principle), not that I would want hell.

You are familiar with false dichotomy, right?

Thank you Skavau, you have just made my case. You reject heaven, therefore you want to go to hell. Case closed.

According to the Judeo Christian worldview, there is no third option.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't gloat about genocide. You do. I merely point out the bible describes god ordaining and committing genocide.

You're apparently having trouble with that.

I have trouble with you saying something is in the bible when it is not.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It means I would reject heaven (on the point of principle), not that I would want hell.

You are familiar with false dichotomy, right?

Apparently not.

 

[Skavau]

Thank you Skavau, you have just made my case. You reject heaven, therefore you want to go to hell. Case closed.

No, not "case closed". I directly told you I don't want to go hell. You are literally covering your eyes, putting fingers in your ears and screaming that you don't hear what I say. You are literally refusing to accept reality.

I do not wish to be on the receiving end of eternal torment. You do not get a vote on what I think, sir.

According to the Judeo Christian worldview, there is no third option.

The Judeo-Christian worldview might institute no third option but it does not mean that individuals view it as a binary choice between either heaven or hell. I reject both.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, not "case closed". I directly told you I don't want to go hell. You are literally covering your eyes, putting fingers in your ears and screaming that you don't hear what I say. You are literally refusing to accept reality.

I do not wish to be on the receiving end of eternal torment.


The Judeo-Christian worldview might institute no third option but it does not mean that individuals view it as a binary choice between either heaven or hell. I reject both.

Good. So what? You reject both. I am not going to argue with you about it. You are argumentative and I am growing weary.

I wish you well on your search for meaning and truth. Good day.

 

[Skavau]

Good. So what? You reject both. I am not going to argue with you about it. You are argumentative and I am growing weary.

I wish you well on your search for meaning and truth. Good day.

So don't put words in my mouth. Don't presume to tell me what I think.

You yourself made a comment earlier on people putting words in your mouth. Why are you such a hypocrite on this?

 

[Elioenai26]

Apparently not.

I wish you well on your search for meaning and truth. I have done with discussing this issue with you. Good day.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I have trouble with you saying something is in the bible when it is not.

And how would you describe gods annihilation of the world in Noah's day.

And how would you describe gods orders to destroy the Amelekites?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I have trouble with you saying something is in the bible when it is not.

It's there in black and white. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la-la-la won't help you.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I wish you well on your search for meaning and truth. I have done with discussing this issue with you. Good day.

Unable to argue with the facts, you choose to abandon the discussion? Good to know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The mental gymnastics some must go through to reconcile their God's actions in Scripture with the idea of a 'morally perfect' being. It is reminiscent of a cult of personality.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The mental gymnastics some must go through to reconcile their God's actions in Scripture with the idea of a 'morally perfect' being. It is reminiscent of a cult of personality.

God has a much better rep among Christians than his recorded deeds would seem to warrant.

 

[Crandaddy]

If God orders the killing of some group of people, is it wrong?

The epistemic status of those who are ordered is crucially important. How do they know it's God who orders them? How do they know they're not crazy, or taking orders from a demon?

One can be sure an order is not from God if the ordered action is understood by the recipient to be morally wrong. If someone receives an order to act in such a way that he understands to be morally wrong, then by virtue of that alone he can determine that said order does not come from God.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The epistemic status of those who are ordered is crucially important. How do they know it's God who orders them? How do they know they're not crazy, or taking orders from a demon?

One can be sure an order is not from God if the ordered action is understood by the recipient to be morally wrong. If someone receives an order to act in such a way that he understands to be morally wrong, then by virtue of that alone he can determine that said order does not come from God.

And if god orders genocide?

 

[Crandaddy]

And if god orders genocide?

Is genocide understood to be morally wrong by those ordered to commit it?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Is genocide understood to be morally wrong by those ordered to commit it?

Are you arguing about the morality of mass murder?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The epistemic status of those who are ordered is crucially important. How do they know it's God who orders them? How do they know they're not crazy, or taking orders from a demon?

One can be sure an order is not from God if the ordered action is understood by the recipient to be morally wrong. If someone receives an order to act in such a way that he understands to be morally wrong, then by virtue of that alone he can determine that said order does not come from God.

In which case Abraham was an idiot, yes?

 

[Gadarene]

The epistemic status of those who are ordered is crucially important. How do they know it's God who orders them? How do they know they're not crazy, or taking orders from a demon?

One can be sure an order is not from God if the ordered action is understood by the recipient to be morally wrong. If someone receives an order to act in such a way that he understands to be morally wrong, then by virtue of that alone he can determine that said order does not come from God.

That seems rather facile. Your understanding could easily be wrong, and you might either understand a command that did originate from God to be wrong.

 

[Max S Cherry]

It appeared to me that you stated these 'facts' outside of the hypothetical at hand. I apologize if that was misconstrued.

No harm done. I was under the impression that it was all in the hypothetical.

I will take issue with your claim that "fact" is synonymous with "proven". You can specify where you got that from.

I get it from the "fact" that there are two different words, facts and beliefs. The thing that seems to separate the two is that one is proven and the other is not. Without that, they seem to me to be the same thing.

 

[Max S Cherry]

The hypothetical I presented assumes for argument that God does exist. But God existing is completely different from whether God is worthy of obedience.

I hold that the two are not completely different. One of God's attributes, to me, is that He is worthy of obedience. He cannot exist without that attribute. My belief in that is probably what caused our trouble. I should have stated it in my first post, and you could have told me that you did not intend for it be included.

My intention of the hypothetical was to query just how far people will go when it comes to obeying God. A lot of theists talk with great conviction about how moral God is and how superior a world view that entrenches morality on his existence is. They say that it derives from God, that his existence somehow objectifies and codifies morality to a binary black and white standard.

I believe that is a position that one cannot hold without first believing in God. To hypothetically suppose that God exists while restricting His qualities to only those that suit you is, I believe, to build the hypothetical to specifically negate the possibility that the theist is correct. I believe you would have to build the hypothetical with God possessing the qualities that the theists believe Him to possess.

So it must be asked of course: Does that mean you'd literally do anything for God? Does that mean you'd literally follow any order, no matter how obscene or atrocious it might appear to be?

You are assuming that any of it would appear obscene or atrocious. I highly doubt that it would. If God was known to exist and if God went about commanding the killing of people, there is no reason to assume that it would appear immoral. I want to believe that I would follow any order God gives, but with the orders He has already given (those I believe in), I fail to obey all the time. So the answer is, no. I would probably fail under those circumstances too.

If you really would then it would have to be asked what you think morality is because it would have almost no resemblance or relevance to concern and compassion towards humanity but only concern with God, and would thus be a glorified slave-master relationship.

I believe you have settled on "a glorified slave-master relationship" as your personal catch phrase for the topic without giving too much thought to what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with a slave's relationship to a master, because as a Christian, I can walk away anytime. God does not hold me captive, because I do not serve Him out of fear of punishment. I serve out of love and respect.

If you want to analogize, it is similar to a parent-child relationship. In fact, it is a parent-child relationship. He is my Father, and I am His child. I do what He says because He knows more than me. What He says is right because He says it is right. He understands what I do not.

I do not understand a morality apart from God. When I was without belief, I found no reason to think in moral terms, because the only good things were those things that benefited me. It was entirely subjective. So to me, morality is fundamentally tied to God. Without God, morality does not exist, at least not in an objective sense.