Stephen Fry - asked What He Would Say If He Met God

[Bungle_Bear]

This is simply a false dichotomy - as Danny has explained in his post.
We are talking about someone who has rejected/ dismissed God - and god - and therefore any god-given moral code. Your 2 options above are both on the presumption and acceptance that God does exist.

Both you and Danny completely miss the point. If God exists, then by your definition our morality is God-given. It matters not if we accept or reject God, that's where you believe our morality comes from. As such, everything I have postulated is correct. There is no option to dismiss that moral code and develop a different one. If God doesn't exist then the question is completely irrelevant.

So my question again is - who or what exactly is Stephen Fry aiming his tirade at?

Either the God who gave him his morality or a non-existant being. Both are a problem for Christians but not for an atheist.

Is it at a God Fry says he doesn't actually believe in? If it is, then why would you go on this moralistic rant towards an entity that you firmly believe has no rational basis for existing?

Because somebody asked him a direct question?

The truth of the matter is that Fry's reaction is because deep down he is resisting what he knows is true - as Paul writes in Romans 1 - this is the real explanation:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

When in doubt, resort to meaningless quotes from the bible. Awesome argumentation!

 

[Inkfingers]

In response to the OP's video:

Its the usual expression of vanity from an atheist (and what I have come to expect from Fry), who thinks they are in any position to judge a creator of an orderly and infinite universe when they cannot even make one planet.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That is not what I'm saying. God DID make everything but Stephen Fry does not believe in God, therefore is clearly not living by God's moral code.

False logic. You believe God gave us our moral code. According to the bible God made us in his image, gave us laws to live by etc etc etc - even those of us who reject him. Until you can demonstrate that anyone has developed a different moral code, the God-given one must be the moral code Stephen Fry lives by. It's your definition of creation and existence, not mine.

We have complete freedom to choose whether or not to follow Jesus' moral code - we are not forced to - this is called freewill and it's very fair.

It's true that we have a choice whether or not to follow a moral code, but that doesn't alter the code in any way. Either we have a God-given moral code or we don't. I can choose to commit murder. I can choose to steal. Does my choice alter the morality of the act?

Are you saying God (if He existed) should have created a world where evil was not possible in order to be moral? (whatever morals means...)

I'm saying that your god's morality appears to be somewhat deficient. The argument isn't whether evil should exist or not, it's about the morality of a god who willfully causes and allows suffering in this world.

Are you saying bone cancer in children is cool? Are you saying the suffering caused by insects eating children's eyes is necessary and morally acceptable (by your God-given standard)?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In response to the OP's video:

Its the usual expression of vanity from an atheist (and what I have come to expect from Fry), who thinks they are in any position to judge a creator of an orderly and infinite universe when they cannot even make one planet.

Is that another plea not to judge God by his own moral standards or another case of special pleading? I suspect the latter.

And here's the really funny part - you're judging Stephen Fry's morality and appear to be saying that he is morally bankrupt and, therefore, wrong to say that it is immoral to cause and allow suffering. What else do you consider morally acceptable that most others do not? And who gave you your moral code?

 

[tonybeer]

He was asked the hypothetical question, so gave an answer.

My question to Christians would be: How did you decide that the rules to follow in the bible were moral?

Anyone who says that a human is not allowed to question whether God is moral or not, is themselves showing their own lack of morality. If all you do is follow the rules of the being that is more powerful than you, because they are more powerful and without judging the morality of the rules, then you are no different to someone who supports a good/evil dictator without judging them first.

 

[Danny777]

Are you saying bone cancer in children is cool?

What have I said that gives you the impression I think bone cancer in children is cool?! How ridiculous and insulting....

Are you saying the suffering caused by insects eating children's eyes is necessary and morally acceptable (by your God-given standard)?

I'm not saying it is morally acceptable - I'm saying it is the result of a fallen world where humanity has rejected God. I am convinced that if sin had not entered the world through the fall, there would be no disease and suffering.

Giving that you are quick to accuse God of immorality for the things that are bad - I presume you believe God should be praised for the many things in the world that are good?

 

[Danny777]

My question to Christians would be: How did you decide that the rules to follow in the bible were moral?

Let's be specific - as a Christian, I follow Christ (obviously!)...do you think the rules that Jesus Christ instructed (ie. love thy neighbour etc) are moral? Jesus' words and actions appeal to my sense of morality as I'm sure do to most people...

 

[tonybeer]

Let's be specific - as a Christian, I follow Christ (obviously!)...do you think the rules that Jesus Christ instructed (ie. love thy neighbour etc) are moral? Jesus' words and actions appeal to my sense of morality as I'm sure do to most people...

Some are, some aren't, and many are over simplifications of what can be complex problems.

But the point is that you have used your own sense of morality to judge whether Jesus is worth listening to. This is fine, it is what everyone does, but it means that you are using your own sense of morality, rather than the bible.

 

[tonybeer]

I am convinced that if sin had not entered the world through the fall, there would be no disease and suffering.

God would have created a universe in which if man falls, these diseases would come into existence. God designs all the rules.

God also must have designed these diseases, since he designed everything.

God can also see into the future and know whether his design of man will fall or not. God knows what his design will turn out like because he can see the future, and it his entire responsibility as the designer.

 

[Danny777]

God would have created a universe in which if man falls, these diseases would come into existence. God designs all the rules.

God also must have designed these diseases, since he designed everything.

God can also see into the future and know whether his design of man will fall or not. God knows what his design will turn out like because he can see the future, and it his entire responsibility as the designer.

If I entrust some money to someone to use as they see fit (either for good or bad), surely they bear some responsibility for what they do with it?

Surely a good parent is one who allows his/her child some responsibility to make decisions. If it not possible for the child make a bad decision, how can the child ever learn?

In God's case (as our designer), we have been given the ability to do both good and bad. Without this, a meaningful relationship with our designer is impossible and futile for both parties. We have been given clear instructions - in Adam and Eve's case, there was only one simple command. Why is it entirely God's responsibility if WE messed everything up even if God gave us the option of messing it up? Surely, mankind bears SOME responsibility...

Despite all of this, we are still offered the opportunity for a restoration of this broken relationship through Jesus Christ - apart from not create this world and us in the first place, what more could God do to give us the chance to repair the damage we caused?

 

[Danny777]

Some are, some aren't, and many are over simplifications of what can be complex problems.

But the point is that you have used your own sense of morality to judge whether Jesus is worth listening to. This is fine, it is what everyone does, but it means that you are using your own sense of morality, rather than the bible.

Give me an example of a commandment Jesus gave that you think is immoral?

 

[Danny777]

That's off the point.

Even if it is 'off the point' do you believe God is omnipotent or not? A straight answer would be nice...

 

[florida2]

I'm not saying it is morally acceptable - I'm saying it is the result of a fallen world where humanity has rejected God. I am convinced that if sin had not entered the world through the fall, there would be no disease and suffering.

So you're saying it's ok because of the supposed actions of one person thousands of years ago? (if you take the Bible literally)

Mr Fry is saying that there is so much suffering in the world that we have no control over and God doesn't stop it. Yes, there is a huge amount that is directly due to human actions but there are a lot of things that we have no control over. He was asked what would happen if hypothetically speaking he arrived at the Pearly Gates and spoke to God. He said he would challenge him which I think is a fair point.

Why should people get cancer, other diseases, suffer natural disasters, have their eyes eaten by insects because of one action of one person thousands of years ago? That hardly sounds like a really loving and all powerful God to me.

 

[Inkfingers]

Is that another plea not to judge God by his own moral standards or another case of special pleading? I suspect the latter.

It's pointing out that God made an entire universe. How can can someone who cannot even make a planet judge God's actions in how He makes said universe. Those eye burrowing worms are a necessary part of the universe - if they were not, they would not be here.

And here's the really funny part - you're judging Stephen Fry's morality and appear to be saying that he is morally bankrupt and, therefore, wrong to say that it is immoral to cause and allow suffering. What else do you consider morally acceptable that most others do not? And who gave you your moral code?

No, I simply recognise that Fry is nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is...but he is far more vain than he recognises.

 

[tonybeer]

If I entrust some money to someone to use as they see fit (either for good or bad), surely they bear some responsibility for what they do with it?

Possibly, but this analogy is nothing like what you are talking about.

To make your example more relevant:

1. The person lending the money is designing the person they are lending the money to. They know whether the design will repay the money or not.

2. They also can see the future and can see that this design will not repay the money.

3. They then punish them based on this and have already designed a load of nasty things to happen to them.

 

[Danny777]

So you're saying it's ok because of the supposed actions of one person thousands of years ago? (if you take the Bible literally)

Mr Fry is saying that there is so much suffering in the world that we have no control over and God doesn't stop it. Yes, there is a huge amount that is directly due to human actions but there are a lot of things that we have no control over. He was asked what would happen if hypothetically speaking he arrived at the Pearly Gates and spoke to God. He said he would challenge him which I think is a fair point.

Why should people get cancer, other diseases, suffer natural disasters, have their eyes eaten by insects because of one action of one person thousands of years ago? That hardly sounds like a really loving and all powerful God to me.

I'm not really saying it's OK - I'm saying that is the way it is. I wish it were different, but the reality is that it is not. God has provided a way out through Christ and the promise of a perfect environment to enjoy forever in the future. I look forward to that...

 

[MorkandMindy]

Possibly, but this analogy is nothing like what you are talking about.

To make your example more relevant:

1. The person lending the money is designing the person they are lending the money to. They know whether the design will repay the money or not.

2. They also can see the future and can see that this design will not repay the money.

3. They then punish them based on this and have already designed a load of nasty things to happen to them.

4. And then they punish all the debtors descendants in an amazing variety of ways.

 

[Danny777]

Possibly, but this analogy is nothing like what you are talking about.

To make your example more relevant:

1. The person lending the money is designing the person they are lending the money to. They know whether the design will repay the money or not.

2. They also can see the future and can see that this design will not repay the money.

3. They then punish them based on this and have already designed a load of nasty things to happen to them.

1 and 2. But some DO repay the money. If no-one did, maybe you could say it was unfair. Many people accept salvation in Christ based on the same evidence as others who reject Christ. I don't understand your sense of injustice about this...

3. Again, this is the result of a choice on the part of the individual making the choice. The Bible makes it clear that God do NOT want anyone to perish - you make it sound like God revels in punishing people...

I quite like this guy - he explains this issue far better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7mhQ8fEq0&sns=fb

 

[tonybeer]

1 and 2. But some DO repay the money. If no-one did, maybe you could say it was unfair. Many people accept salvation in Christ based on the same evidence as others who reject Christ. I don't understand your sense of injustice about this...

3. Again, this is the result of a choice on the part of the individual making the choice. The Bible makes it clear that God do NOT want anyone to perish - you make it sound like God revels in punishing people...

We are talking about the reason there are diseases, which you said was the fault of man.

Did God design all the horrible diseases that afflict humans?

 

[Danny777]

We are talking about the reason there are diseases, which you said was the fault of man.

Did God design all the horrible diseases that afflict humans?

I don't think God designed them - they were simply a potential result of the fallen world bought about by man's rebellion. There would be no such thing is man had simply walked with God in the way originally intended.

How do you explain the existence of 'evil'?