Hitler

Originally posted by chaney3
God had to witness these people suffer for years. And that is disturbing to me.

Something seems flawed when God looks the other way, to honor Hitler's free will.

It must be troubling for anyone who believes both 1. that there is a god figure who could intervene and 2. that there is reason to believe (according to their religious creed) that such a god figure should have, but failed to, intervene.

If one believes neither of these things, then the positive thing is that one doesn't have any futile religious hand wringing angst which one piles on top of the horror of the Holocaust.

Originally posted by FMF
It must be troubling for anyone who believes both 1. that there is a god figure who could intervene and 2. that there is reason to believe (according to their religious creed) that such a god figure should have, but failed to, intervene.

If one believes neither of these things, then the positive thing is that one doesn't have any futile religious hand wringing angst which one piles on top of the horror of the Holocaust.

It is troubling indeed, and Hitler is an extreme example.

But what about the 8 year old girl that is about to be kidnapped, raped and murdered at the hands of a man? It would seem that God knows this is going to happen, and looks away, again, to honor free will. But to me, this explanation only looks at the free will of the man, and ignores the 8 year old girl.

We are told and advised to not question God, that He knows what He is doing. But as a human, with a moral standard, it is mind boggling.

Originally posted by chaney3
But what about the 8 year old girl that is about to be kidnapped, raped and murdered at the hands of a man? It would seem that God knows this is going to happen, and looks away, again, to honor free will.

To me "it would seem" nothing of the sort. Psychologically speaking, what you are doing is a bit like you're pissing on your own back and then telling yourself it's raining. If you find the whole scenario regarding a god figure, its supposed benevolence, its explicit obligations, and the purported entitlement of humans to be protected from the actions other humans by god... if you find it so unbelievable, then why do you believe it?

Originally posted by chaney3
We are told and advised to not question God, that He knows what He is doing.

Who told you this? And why do you give him, her or them credence?

Originally posted by FMF
To me "it would seem" nothing of the sort. Psychologically speaking, what you are doing is a bit like you're pissing on your own back and then telling yourself it's raining. If you find the whole scenario regarding a god figure, its supposed benevolence, its explicit obligations, and the purported entitlement of humans to be protected from the actions other humans by god... if you find it so unbelievable, then why do you believe it?

I believe in a Creator.
But as the years go by, I find that it's almost impossible to know or understand this Creator. But that does not mean the Creator is not there, in MY opinion.

Originally posted by chaney3
I believe in a Creator.

But you are making a leap from that ... to a scenario in which some sort of supernatural being intervenes in events connected with World War 2. What reasons do you have for making that leap?

Originally posted by FMF
But you are making a leap from that ... to a scenario in which some sort of supernatural being intervenes in events connected with World War 2. What reasons do you have for making that leap?

I made no such 'leap'.
I stated the fact that God did nothing. I am now stating that I don't know or understand God, regardless of how the Bible attempts to portray Him, whatever that is.

Would I prefer that God intervenes in such cruelty? Yes, of course. But the fact He doesn't is not something I understand.

But then there's the debate of utopia if He always intervenes, so I cannot explain, nor do I have any answers, just an opinion.

Originally posted by chaney3
I made no such 'leap'.
I stated the fact that God did nothing.

Yes you are making a leap from a notion about creation to the notion of a being 'doing something'. Who told you that something should have been done (by this being) but it wasn't done? Where did you get this impression from and why do you believe it?

Originally posted by FMF
Yes you are making a leap from a notion about creation to the notion of a being 'doing something'. Who told you that something should have been done (by this being) but it wasn't done? Where did you get this impression from and why do you believe it?

The Bible.
The notion that God created humans, that He loves us, that He cares about us. It is nice reading, but the facts don't support it.

Originally posted by chaney3
The Bible.
The notion that God created humans, that He loves us, that He cares about us. It is nice reading, but the facts don't support it.

Well if you don't believe what the Bible says, so what? There are literally billions of people who don't.

Originally posted by FMF
Well if you don't believe what the Bible says, so what? There are literally billions of people who don't.

Correct. Which is why I have said in these few previous pages that I believe in God (Creator), but have no idea really who He is. But I still believe He is there.

Originally posted by FMF
But I have already explained that I don't think everyone's opinion on morality is equally valid. Morality enables us to try to figure out what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do. If, having used my moral sensibilities to figure that out in a given situation, why on earth would I believe that the behaviour of someone who was doing somethin ...[text shortened]... ally wrong was "equally valid"? Good grief. It's as if you are just not reading any of my posts.

So you are saying in every given situation there is there is either a right thing to do or a wrong thing to do? And only one opinion can be right? Two differing opinions can't both be right?

Originally posted by FMF
I have already explained what the sources of my moral sensibilities are and how I feel able to arrive at varying degrees of certainty about what I believe is the right thing for me - or any person - to do. If you need ancient Hebrew mythology to help you arrive at a moral condemnation of the Holocaust, then so be it. It strikes me as more than a little odd, but ...[text shortened]... your humanity complete and for it to function? Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then why should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?

2. If you say that people should adhere to your subjective moral standard, then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?

3. If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?

Originally posted by chaney3
I might agree with you, but where do we find this objective standard? The answer cannot be the Bible!!

Because Hitler, and others throughout history have used 'their' interpretation of scripture to support their beliefs.

The simple fact that Bible interpretation is not universally agreed upon, opens the door for people to use it against others.

Which verse(s) in the Bible do you think did Hitler and others base their interpretation on to support their beliefs? The fact that some nut jobs take a verse out of context does not prove anything about the validity of the scriptures.

Originally posted by FMF
If you agree with josephw that I am "incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong", why not just say so.

[b]All you have then is a bunch of grey areas where everyone's opinion is equally valid.

No I haven't.[/b]

Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Your conclusion that your view can be right and someone else's can be wrong only makes sense if there is an objective standard. Without one it would be impossible to know what is really right and wrong since you would only have subjective opinions and it would be impossible to know for sure that your opinion is right. It is like saying there is no standard by which to objectively measure who has the right answer to a math problem. And then claiming that your answer is right, and someone else's is wrong.