15 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd even under the assumption that this is KellyJay's view... the view is absolutely correct.
I'm not sure why you're so confused about this. As I already said, it follows naturally from your own view! Haven't you ever actually considered the implications of your own view? Your view in essence asserts that God has the right to do anything whatsoever with His creation. So, it follows readily that God has the right to, for example, drive ...[text shortened]... rself do not possess, for example, the right to life -- or any other rights for that matter.
God is utterly and completely sovereign and we and all creation have absolutely ZERO rights in and of ourselves. However--and this is important--we do have the right to trust that our Creator will stay true to His promises and hold him accountable for those promises.
Another perhaps more important point is, though we don't have an inalienable right to life, or anything else, we also do not have the inalienable right to take life as in murder. God can do all the things you said, and much, much worse if He wants. His sandbox. But, if He is a God worthy of praise and love, He won't do those things; and of course all the things you mentioned are hypothetical because God has never done anything remotely close to those arbitrary acts of torture and murder.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidGod has never done anything remotely close to those arbitrary acts of torture and murder.
And even under the assumption that this [b]is KellyJay's view... the view is absolutely correct.
God is utterly and completely sovereign and we and all creation have absolutely ZERO rights in and of ourselves. However--and this is important--we do have the right to trust that our Creator will stay true to His promises and hold him accountable ...[text shortened]... use God has never done anything remotely close to those arbitrary acts of torture and murder.[/b]
Sure He has, if you take a literal view of the bible. Anyway, the fact that your own accounts, taken literally, confirm that He has already perpetrated such acts is not your biggest problem. Your biggest problem is that you're committed to the idea that His carrying out such acts (or any acts whatsoever basically without qualification) absolutely would be for the best. Remember, I tried to discuss this with you once before? Thread 143074. You never actually addressed my concerns with your position there and then, so I tend to doubt you will address them here and now.
15 Sep 12
Nope. Your list contains (at least presumably) arbitrary, senseless acts. God has never commited acts like these and the bible testaments to my claim.
Your argument is based on a presumption that is not supported by the bible. In the bible, God never does anything in arbitrary fashion. God punished some folks, and quite harshly; no argument there. But He had good reason for each and every act. Your hypotheticals presume (rightfully) that God could torture and kill on an arbitrary whim; but according to the bible He has never done such a thing, and as I said, if He had a history of doing such things, He would not be a God worthy of our praise and love.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidNo. The bible, taken literally as an account of God's dealings, shows God engaging in a number of arbitrary and/or senseless acts.
Nope. Your list contains (at least presumably) arbitrary, senseless acts. God has never commited acts like these and the bible testaments to my claim.
Your argument is based on a presumption that is not supported by the bible. In the bible, God never does anything in arbitrary fashion. God punished some folks, and quite harshly; no argument there. Bu ...[text shortened]... , if He had a history of doing such things, He would not be a God worthy of our praise and love.
But, like I said, that's not really your biggest problem.
if He had a history of doing such things, He would not be a God worthy of our praise and love.
Here's where we get to your biggest problem. Now you are, in fact, simply contradicting yourself. Remember? You're committed to the stance that God's doing such things absolutely would be for the best. So, you get a big fat FAIL here.
This is a perfect example of how one gets caught up in the end with all this bizarro type talk. "Oh come on, God would never, ever do that and if He did He wouldn't be worth worshipping! Oh, but if He did do that, His doing so absolutely would be for the best." There's your incoherent view in a nutshell. People can read the other thread to which I linked if they want more background on this.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt might help if we have some sort of definition for what you mean by 'rights'. For those of us who have not studied the topic, it is a little unclear. Are rights another way of looking at morals? Can all morals be express in terms of rights?
If one side is arguing that rights come from God, and the other side is arguing that rights come from man; then I think both sides are wrong. As I already hinted, rights do not get established by fiat or consensus; they are granted neither by individuals nor by groups. The idea that someone or some group could simply grant you rights is no less absurd t ...[text shortened]... take your rights away. So I think both sides of this argument you describe are pretty confused.
One thing I am not clear on is why you think there cant be exceptions. For example, if God is not obligated to respect your rights why does that imply you have no rights. It is because of some property of God? What if God does not have that property? As example a rock may fall on you and kill you, but we would not say the rock was obligated to respect your right to life. So if God is seen as a natural force rather than a moral entity would that solve the problem? Though I see that that would lead to the conclusion that labelling God 'good' or 'just' then becomes invalid.
And if God is a moral entity, cant he be an exception? Would his right to kill you with impunity some how stop you having a right to life with respect to all other humans?
Originally posted by sumydidNot read the Book of Job then? Seems like God was having a bit of a laugh and a joke with his pal Satan (not clear if drink was taken) and took up the challenge to see what happens if he destroys everything in Job's life including his (presumably no less innocent) family. Mind you, in the end he gets a replacement family, if I remember rightly, and from the perspective that wives and children are just property, that sounds reasonable. Not from any other perspective of course.
Nope. Your list contains (at least presumably) arbitrary, senseless acts. God has never commited acts like these and the bible testaments to my claim.
Your argument is based on a presumption that is not supported by the bible. In the bible, God never does anything in arbitrary fashion. God punished some folks, and quite harshly; no argument there. Bu ...[text shortened]... , if He had a history of doing such things, He would not be a God worthy of our praise and love.
Not that I wish to trivialise Job too much. It is a reflection on what actually is our experience - that there is no connection between what we deserve by being moral and ethical and what comes along and slaps us in the face. Stuff happens. The evil prosper. Trying to fit God's Will into that picture is just confusing.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloShow some arbitrary and/or senseless act in scripture please! The times I'm
No. The bible, taken literally as an account of God's dealings, shows God engaging in a number of arbitrary and/or senseless acts.
But, like I said, that's not really your biggest problem.
[b]if He had a history of doing such things, He would not be a God worthy of our praise and love.
Here's where we get to your biggest problem. Now you ...[text shortened]... eople can read the other thread to which I linked if they want more background on this.[/b]
aware of that nasty things were going on was when people we sinning and
God put an end to them. As I pointed out to you before that could have been
done a number of ways, why He choose to use us (people) I can only guess is
to stress what we needed to know, these types of actions they were being
judged for are not to be done!
Kelly
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJello"How is that question relevant?"
How is that question relevant? The issue is about whether or not we have rights, not whether or not we have the power to successfully force others to respect our rights. In my opinion, you muddy the waters in these discussions by confusing the following different things: (1) rights and (2) the power to police rights. Just because I lack the power to "h ...[text shortened]... think the claim that God has the right to do whatever with His creation is false.
You may as well have a computer program complain that the programmer who
is wrote the code did something the program didn't like. You may as well have
a pot complain that the potter made it with the wrong colors. You being
created, were created for the reasons of the Creator, so than how are you to
hold your Creator into account for anything since He made not only you but
everything in the univese you live in and set in place all the rules you have
come to know and trust, and fumble about to understand.
Kelly
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is my belief that this is the sort of moral question we will have to face when we finally achieve conscious artificial intelligence. It certainly won't be the open and shut case you make it out to be. At a minimum you need to justify your stance rather than state it as obvious fact - when it is clearly far from obvious to those of us that disagree with your stance.
You may as well have a computer program complain that the programmer who
is wrote the code did something the program didn't like.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidWelcome back, my friend. It is good to see you here once again. 🙂
Nope. Your list contains (at least presumably) arbitrary, senseless acts. God has never commited acts like these and the bible testaments to my claim.
Your argument is based on a presumption that is not supported by the bible. In the bible, God never does anything in arbitrary fashion. God punished some folks, and quite harshly; no argument there. Bu ...[text shortened]... , if He had a history of doing such things, He would not be a God worthy of our praise and love.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by KellyJayThe Book of Job.
Show some arbitrary and/or senseless act in scripture please! The times I'm
aware of that nasty things were going on was when people we sinning and
God put an end to them. As I pointed out to you before that could have been
done a number of ways, why He choose to use us (people) I can only guess is
to stress what we needed to know, these types of actions they were being
judged for are not to be done!
Kelly
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by KellyJayYou asked
Could you be specific please?
KJ
Show some arbitrary and/or senseless act in scripture please! The times I'm aware of that nasty things were going on was when people were sinning and God put an end to them.
The story of Job is entirely about arbitrary and undeserved hardship. As set out, it implies that God accepted a challenge from Satan to test Job's faith by destroying everything he had. The whole point of the story is that Job was intensely virtuous. Ethically, the experiment leaves much to be desired. I'm aware that the story explores what most people recognize - that virtue is not rewarded and that the evil seem to prosper, as they certainly do in our neo-liberal world order, which rewards greed to excess. To the 1% who have everything is given, to the majority who have not, what they do have is systematically taken from them.
This was always my favourite book in the Bible and has some lovely poetical writing in it.
You may argue that it is not either senseless or arbitrary, but I would respond that in that case you miss the whole point. You may accept that this is a meditation on one of the harder aspects of faith, but I would reply that nevertheless, on the face of it, this is a pretty unpleasant way to treat a virtuous man and certainly does call for a pretty serious explanation beyond the trivial claim that all suffering is caused by our own sins.
16 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganThen you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of even the most rudimentary teachings of the bible.
(paraphrased) "The book of Job is a shining example of God commiting an arbitrary, heinous act of torture."
Job suffered to teach all of us, including and especially Satan, an unforgettable lesson about faith and perserverance.
Job suffered so that the rest of us could have a better understanding. In the end, Job's possessions--and more--were returned to him. He suffered relatively briefly, on this physical plain, for us. And now Job is with God for eternity. Well worth it for Job. Job benefited by this, more than anyone else did or will. We are taught that those who suffer here on Earth for God are given the greatest rewards in heaven.
And on and on.
I can understand from an unbelieving perspective, that this appears to be God and the devil making an arbitrary "bet," sort of like Ralph and Mortimer Duke in the movie Trading Places.
But if you are going to take the bible at face value--and you must if you insist on presenting its pages as testament to your claim--then it should be quite obvious from cover to cover that God and Satan are not on friendly terms and don't meet at the local pub to make arbitrary bets.