Originally posted by KellyJayThere is
It is only because God is love and just that you can even entertain such
questions, if He were as people here paint Him; you'd just live your life
in misery for His sadistic pleasure, again without recourse. There is
none that can deliver us out of His hand, no court of appeals He is
bound to that we can go to so you can plead our case, if justice isn’t
found in Him and His nature, there is none.
Kelly
none that can deliver us out of His hand, no court of appeals He is
bound to that we can go to so you can plead our case,
Yes, God could bring about whatever he wants and we cannot stop him because he is so powerful. So?
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't think I understand your question; a right is what to you, some
[b]There is
none that can deliver us out of His hand, no court of appeals He is
bound to that we can go to so you can plead our case,
Yes, God could bring about whatever he wants and we cannot stop him because he is so powerful. So?[/b]
thing you are owed, something you are entitled too, what? You have
claims before God that He must honor?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're obviously just not paying attention here. I never claimed that there exist rights that "God owes me" (whatever the hell that would even mean).
What right do you think you have God owes you?
Kelly
Manny basically made the claim that one could argue that God has the right to take the life of persons he created. I simply asked him how he would go about arguing for that. I want to hear some argument for it. Got any, or not?
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, sorry, I will try again. I have heard this claim before (roughly, that since God created us, it is permissible for him to do whatever he wants to us). But I have never heard any good argument for it. I am wondering if you (or Manny or whoever) have any reasons that you think support such a claim.
Maybe I am completely misunderstanding your question can you
ask it another way?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't really care to cast everything here into talk of 'rights'. But basically, I understand a 'right' to be something irreducibly normative, and when a right is held, I understand it to entail that others in the normative community thereby have some obligation(s). For instance, if we say you have a right to life, then it would entail that others have obligation, for example, not to kill you for no good reason.
I don't think I understand your question; a right is what to you, some
thing you are owed, something you are entitled too, what? You have
claims before God that He must honor?
Kelly
I think, however, for the purpose of this discussion that we can dispense with the talk of 'rights' and say that Manny's claim boils down to something like that it would be permissible for God to take the life of persons he created. Of course, it's not permissible (for many reasons) for you or me to take the life of other persons for no good reason. But somehow it's permissible for God to do so? I don't get it, so I was hoping you could explain it.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat man can do and what God can do are not the same, the
I don't really care to cast everything here into talk of 'rights'. But basically, I understand a 'right' to be something irreducibly normative, and when a right is held, I understand it to entail that others in the normative community thereby have some obligation(s). For instance, if we say you have a right to life, then it would entail that others have ...[text shortened]... permissible for God to do so? I don't get it, so I was hoping you could explain it.
rules do not apply to both equally.
Taking your life, assumes you own it right, but you belong to God! So
why should God not be able to move you from this life to the next at
His will? He is Lord of all, that includes you too, you may reject God's
claim you are enpowered to do so, it doesn't mean your rejection will
do anything to remove God's claim on your life. He may at the end
reject you from His Kingdom, but you are still His nonetheless.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell I would argue it from the stand point that God is all powerful and can do as he wills. The Christian argument would be that all souls (Humans) belong to him so He has the right to do as he chooses. Someone used the potter metaphor. I'm saying anyone has to buy this argument but if I was arguing this position that would be it.
[b]I guess however we can argue God alone has this right to take life.
How would you go about arguing for that?[/b]
Manny
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat man can do and what God can do are not the same, the
What man can do and what God can do are not the same, the
rules do not apply to both equally.
Taking your life, assumes you own it right, but you belong to God! So
why should God not be able to move you from this life to the next at
His will? He is Lord of all, that includes you too, you may reject God's
claim you are enpowered to do so, it doesn't ...[text shortened]... fe. He may at the end
reject you from His Kingdom, but you are still His nonetheless.
Kelly
rules do not apply to both equally.
Why? Aren't both man and God moral agents? If there are reasons that rationally constrain or bind one, why wouldn't the same sorts of reasons generally bind the other as well? There seem to be several reasons why you or I shouldn't go around killing other persons. For instance, it would mean extinguishing a sphere of consciousness that is just as real as our own (and it seems a failure of rationality to take your own basic interests as directly reason giving and yet not recognize the reason-giving force of those interests in another). It would mean extinguishing many meaningful projects and relationships (again a failure of rationality inasmuch as you take the projects and relationships enveloping your own life as reason-giving). It would bring about much pain and suffering. Basic deliverances of the virtuous traits of character (like compassion) constrain our reasons and considerations here. Etc. Plus there would also be prudential reasons: you would risk jail time and punishment and general ruin. Maybe God is too powerful to be bound by any such prudential reasons, but why should he be sheltered from the other deliverances of practical reason?
Besides, in everyday circumstances, it's not like any of us have to sort through these practical reasons: it's not like you often introspect and genuinely deliberate about whether or not to kill the person seated next to you on the subway. For the average person, abiding character constrains what one takes to be live options about what to do, such that killing another person for no good reason is just not even a practical option. (Sure, if the person seated next to me on the subway brings out a knife and advances on me or my family, then I'll do whatever I feel compelled to do even if that means killing him, but those are not everyday circumstances.) Your God's character certainly seems deficient in the sense that he seems fixated on killing, keeping track of our supposed failings, and inflicting punishment. Somehow, sanctioning genocide and killing persons for no good reason and visiting eternal suffering on persons and turning persons into salt and drowning out virtually all creation and other such nonsense are live practical options for him. You want to tell me that God is somehow justified in this, but to me it just seems that he needs some help getting his considerations in order. Basically, OT God (taken more or less literally as you seem to take him) needs to get a life.
Your other argument seems to be that I somehow "belong to" God and thus he can do with me what he likes. That doesn't seem to make any sense. If you own a dog, the dog somehow belongs to you, but you would deny that it is permissible for you to treat your dog just any old way you please, right? If this isn't exactly the same sense in which I "belong to" God, why should that even matter? If hypothetically you somehow developed the ability to somehow just create a dog out of thin air at will; then you would be justified in treating any such dog however you pleased, just in virtue of the fact that it "belongs to" you? I don't see how that makes any sense.
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71Thanks.
Well I would argue it from the stand point that God is all powerful and can do as he wills. The Christian argument would be that all souls (Humans) belong to him so He has the right to do as he chooses. Someone used the potter metaphor. I'm saying anyone has to buy this argument but if I was arguing this position that would be it.
Manny
Well I would argue it from the stand point that God is all powerful and can do as he wills.
As I sort of mentioned to KellyJay earlier, this doesn't seem to be a good argument. Sure, if he is all powerful, then God can successfully bring about basically whatever he wants. That follows pretty trivially. But that it is permissible for God to successfully bring about whatever he wants doesn't follow. For example, surely you possess the ability to harass elderly people you meet on the street. You could successfully bring such harassment about. But it doesn't follow that it is permissible for you to do so.
The Christian argument would be that all souls (Humans) belong to him so He has the right to do as he chooses.
KellyJay also raised this argument. Again, it doesn't seem like a good argument to me, as I discussed somewhat in my previous post above.
Someone used the potter metaphor.
Yes, KellyJay brought it up. It doesn't seem to preserve a basic distinction. I cannot do anything to harm a pot any more than I can do anything to harm a rock. Pots aren't sentient and don't have any mentality and don't have any interests, etc. So, sure, what does it much matter what I resolve to do with my own pot? As far as I can tell, this analogy doesn't really translate to the general cases that are actually in question, which concern treatment of entities that are sentient and do have interests and can suffer and do have points of view under which things can go badly, etc.
Originally posted by LemonJelloActually that is the long and short of it, owning, more power, the creator,
[b]What man can do and what God can do are not the same, the
rules do not apply to both equally.
Why? Aren't both man and God moral agents? If there are reasons that rationally constrain or bind one, why wouldn't the same sorts of reasons generally bind the other as well? There seem to be several reasons why you or I shouldn't go around killing ...[text shortened]... tue of the fact that it "belongs to" you? I don't see how that makes any sense.[/b]
He who sets the rules, He who sets the boundaries, are all God. As I did
point out to you already, your claims against mistreatment are to the one
who set the boundaries of treatment if mistreatment were not an issue
with Him you'd have no claim.
The rules that do apply to God are those that He lays down on Himself
and His nature, we are told what the 10 Commandments are by Him. He
setup the universe in the beginning and called it very good, things changed
within the boundaries He setup but His goal has not, and it is still going to
occur where in His universe by the laws and precepts He lays down there
will be a Kingdom that He can call very good, as He salvages what can be
out of the current one, the life on this planet has been set as temporary a
precursor to the one to come.
So how we treat one another and how He treats us are different, just as
someone in authority at work or in the military has a different set of rules
as someone of lower rank or position. One has the ability to give raises
and fire the other does not.
Kelly
Originally posted by menace71The problem there is that it's a "have your cake and eat it too" argument. If Humanity has free will, and is responsible for the sum total of their existance, then their bodies, their spirits and their souls belong to them as well. One cannot be owned and still lay claim to free will.
Well I would argue it from the stand point that God is all powerful and can do as he wills. The Christian argument would be that all souls (Humans) belong to him so He has the right to do as he chooses. Someone used the potter metaphor. I'm saying anyone has to buy this argument but if I was arguing this position that would be it.
Manny