Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Originally posted by KellyJay
"It's hard to understand what many theists mean by 'justice', given that their belief that God is just must be read as compatible with at least all the following: (1) the harrowing accounts of how God has interacted with humankind and the rest of the animal kingdom, as given in the theist's accounts (2) God's eternal punishment of persons. "

The sin's Go ...[text shortened]... ntable for His/hers actions than
justice seems to scream for God's interaction.
Kelly

I haven't left out anything related to sins. I explicitly mentioned the theist's own accounts, which presumably cover this. Perhaps you care to explain how these sins merit the punishment of eternal suffering? Perhaps you care to explain how God's interactions to which you allude (those of sanctioning mass killings and genocide, or drowning out nearly all of creation and the like, for instance) were just?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I wasn't aware that there was anything wrong with my heart. Besides if I am, as you claim, having trouble understanding things here, that should implicate a problem within my mentality, not my blood pump.

You could always try explaining it to me if you think I have a failure of the understanding.

The heart I am referring to is your central being. That is, you must change who you are in relation to your attitude toward the truth of God. In your present state of mind, I am not sure that I can get through to you, any better than I have with the JWs. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Freedom and good:
Having choices is freedom, not picking something just out of ... the why gets
into good and evil. You need a standard by which to judge, if we don't have
one we are all bound by, than none is so important we should all care about it;
however, if there is...than good will be something we can judge by it. God being
the standard sets the bar very high.
Kelly

No, freedom is not simply having choices. Freedom relates to having the ability to act autonomously, where acting autonomously implies that one's actions display some genuine reflection of who she is. One way in which I think your religion perverts the notion of 'freedom' is by presenting it basically as the ability to slavishly (and with suppression of questioning attitude and critical thought) submit to the will of a putative authority, as in the "freedom" to blindly serve. The point of freedom is that one's actions should reflect her own evaluative commitments, not those of any another.

Concerning the 'good', it is difficult to understand what many theists mean by the term when they claim that God's actions are definitive of goodness and yet their own accounts of God's actions frustrate even our most basic intuitions regarding the good. Any ethical theory that suggests, for instance, that the sanctioning of genocide is good is pretty much thereby disconfirmed. So, when you claim that God sets the standard for good; and yet your own accounts show him sanctioning mass killings and genocide and whatnot; then your account of the 'good' ought to be relegated to the realm of bizarro-terms.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The heart I am referring to is your central being. That is, you must change who you are in relation to your attitude toward the truth of God. In your present state of mind, I am not sure that I can get through to you, any better than I have with the JWs. 😏

Sorry, but I doubt I can change who I am in relation to the question of the truth of God without new reasons or evidence to consider on the topic. The ball is in your court when it comes to providing some. I see that you feel you are not up to the task, though.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In a nutshell this is why God sent His Son to be sacrificed for our sins and allow Man to attain that change and that perfection.

You're this close to finally understanding what Christianity has to offer. Just make the final leap of faith.

It's not so hard to wrap your head around it after all.

This highlights another bizarro-term, that of bizarro-salvation.

One aspect of bizarro-salvation is The Doctrine of the Scapegoat, which basically says that making a putative innocent suffer and bleed conduces to cosmic bizarro-justice. It of course relates to bizarro-justice, not justice, since it reinforces the bizarro idea that it is just to make an innocent suffer for the actions of some guilty party.

Mind explaining why I should think making an innocent bleed conduces to justice and moral balance? Mind explaining why I should think that making a putative innocent suffer and bleed is needed for change in mankind? By "explaining" I mean providing some actual reasons, not just saying that I need to take such things on faith. When you keep telling people that they need faith to accept such things, you're basically just making my point for me, since you are affirming that you have at your disposal no good reasons to think such things. Right?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Respectful?

The man used the term Perversion. How respectful is that?

Yeah, I said the "perversion" of basic terms. If you bother to look up the term 'perversion', that in context means something like the distortion beyond normal recognition of basic terms.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your points of clarification, you know where you provide actual reasons aimed at enhancing my understanding. Do you have any?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Besides, I thought you were committed to the idea that, ultimately, God created the world and everything in it. Is that not correct?
Yes I believe God is creation.


Okay, so you maintain you cannot explain or describe love directly. But we should at least be able to outline things that are consistent (or not) with loving attitudes. For exa e and that I can still make a choice to continue serving God the way He is.

In my opinion, the gift of salvation from God falls under point 2 above.

So you're saying that when one claims that God offers the "gift" of salvation, that should be interpreted as saying that God is gifted, as in He has some relevant power or knowledge, etc? If so, surely this "gift" talk is just pointless and totally needless in view of the fact that the theist already asserts that God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

You haven't seen a lot of doctors have you? Some of them are egocentric and only they know best.

I didn't say that I doubt there are doctors that egocentric; I said that I doubt there are any responsible doctors that egocentric. Obviously your God must be profoundly egocentric, if I am to believe that He gives His creatures the forced-choice scenario to relate with Him or else suffer the worst fate conceivable. At the same time, it makes Him irresponsible in a number of ways.

This is your opinion. I think you want to start blaming God or someone to feel better. The gift that God provides in a sense YES does sound as ridiculous to you as your example above to me, the fact is you are making a joke of it and I'm not.

I'm not trying to make a joke of it. I'm trying to understand what theists mean when they claim, for example, that God is definitive of love and justice while at the same time holding accounts of Him where He is clearly jealous, petty, vengeful, and the like. I was not merely making a joke: I was trying to point out what I think is a failing in your analogy. I can refuse the services of a doctor without having him provide for my eternal suffering. It seems the same cannot be said of your God. Am I wrong about that?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Can science tell you what I'm thinking? I guess no. Can science tell you what I'm thinking after I told you what I was thinking. I guess no again. Science is not the answer to all the questions, in fact, there are many studies that proves science can not accurately measure human feelings. I agree that science can measure the way we react to certain types fe ...[text shortened]... that I have towards someone.

I say again, the love you have inside you is indescribable.

I think there is some confusion here between partial descriptions and complete descriptions. Are you claiming that even partial description is impossible, or only complete description?
I say that partial description is required for us to even discuss the subject. I also claim that complete description is only limited by our instrumentation and time constraints etc. There is no particular attribute of your thoughts or love that renders them impervious to study or description. Further, if such attributes do exist we cannot even hope to discuss them or even know of their existence.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, freedom is not simply having choices. Freedom relates to having the ability to act autonomously, where acting autonomously implies that one's actions display some genuine reflection of who she is. One way in which I think your religion perverts the notion of 'freedom' is by presenting it basically as the ability to slavishly (and with suppression of ...[text shortened]... then your account of the 'good' ought to be relegated to the realm of bizarro-terms.

I agree what point would there be to saying choices are before you if you are
not allowed to make any.

With respect to God being judged by the same standard we use on man/ourselves
I do not for a second think that is logical. For one we are not the same, we did
not design the universe and all that is in it, we are not the one that set boundaries
upon everything where this will get so hot that will get so cold, this will live so
long that will not. So God who created life can at His will end it or put boundaries
upon it as God chooses, since we are not in that position we don't have right
to do with life as we will, life belongs to God not us.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree what point would there be to saying choices are before you if you are
not allowed to make any.

With respect to God being judged by the same standard we use on man/ourselves
I do not for a second think that is logical. For one we are not the same, we did
not design the universe and all that is in it, we are not the one that set boundaries
upon ...[text shortened]... at position we don't have right
to do with life as we will, life belongs to God not us.
Kelly

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that there are actions (for example, the sanctioning of genocide) of which it is permissible for God to perform while at the same time impermissible for us to perform because God is not bound to the same moral standards as ourselves.

There are some major problems with this view, and I would like to know how you'll address them. Some of the problems include the following.

For one, you'll need some account that makes sense of the idea that one rational, moral agent (God) is bound to different moral standards than other rational, moral agents (us). What exactly explains His not being bound to the same moral standards as ourselves? You've indicated that you think it is explained by the fact that He is the creator of life and the world, etc; whereas we are not. But that doesn't make any sense: the descriptive fact that he is the creator of the world should not have such normative implications.

For two, this view means that you are in no position to state that God functions as a moral exemplar for humanity. An exemplar is one who leads by example, and is one whose actions can be justifiably replicated and placed into service by those who look up to him. But, if as you claim, God's actions are bound to a different standard than ours, then His actions cannot serve reliably as a model for your own. So, your God cannot be your moral exemplar. At best, He would be a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of a guy.

For three, your view has bizarre entailments. Your view entails that if, hypothetically, you developed the ability to spontaneously create sentient beings, then it would permissible for you to treat them any way you pleased. For example, if you developed the ability to spontaneously create puppies, or something, then it would be okay for you to torture them for fun. This is an absurd implication of your view. (The fact that your God has the right to torture puppies for fun, or sanction genocide, or etc, is another totally absurd implication of your view, but somehow you have mananged to rationalize that away to your own satisfaction.)

For four, I think your view is powerless to provide any non-arbitrary explanations of moral (in)correctness. For example, we could look to reasons to understand why creatures like you and I should not engage in something like genocide. The reasons seem quite obvious, like that genocide leads to widespread and horrific suffering, pain, death, etc, etc. But on your view, these cannot explain why genocide is wrong for us; because, after all, the same considerations hold when God engages in genocide and it is somehow not wrong for Him to do so. So, such reasons become explanatorily impotent on your view. You could hold that God's commanding us not to kill is what explains the wrongness of genocide for creatures such as us. But that type of explanation makes morals arbitrary (pace this horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma). And you would still have to explain the bizarre feature of your view that what God commands and what God does are two radically and completely different things. If a person judges action A to be wrong and yet forms the intention to carry A out, then that signals irrationality. So, it seems God would be an irrational person on your view, telling others it is wrong to kill while at the same time running around sanctioning mass killings.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With respect to God being judged by the same standard we use on man/ourselves
I do not for a second think that is logical.

But then it is bizzaro to use terms like 'loving', 'good', just' etc when describing him if they cannot effectively be applied to him. If nothing he does can be judged 'wrong' because he basically owns the place and everything in it, then it is equally incorrect to judge him 'good'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But then it is bizzaro to use terms like 'loving', 'good', just' etc when describing him if they cannot effectively be applied to him. If nothing he does can be judged 'wrong' because he basically owns the place and everything in it, then it is equally incorrect to judge him 'good'.

We can make a judgement call on who we think is good or bad. However, we have no authority to do so. All authority in heaven and on Earth and under the Earth has been given to Christ, the Son of God. All judgment has also been given to Christ and He has already judged that only God is good.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that there are actions (for example, the sanctioning of genocide) of which it is permissible for God to perform while at the same time impermissible for us to perform because God is not bound to the same moral standards as ourselves.

There are some major problems with this view, and I would like to know ers it is wrong to kill while at the same time running around sanctioning mass killings.

Since God created the universe, appoints each person's death...I'd say He has
some level of control the rest of us do not, yes. Again, He setup everything
from gravity, to how big your zits can get...he sets the boundries on how far
up the waves come up the beach, He can and does have the power to end a life
as He sees fit yes. He has this because He is the one that gave our lives to us,
we on the other hand recieved this we didn't earn it or by our own had maintain
it over time. The processes of life are not ours, we can bump them or nuge
them from time to time, but if life does not heal itself by design we die if we
are sick or injured.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that there are actions (for example, the sanctioning of genocide) of which it is permissible for God to perform while at the same time impermissible for us to perform because God is not bound to the same moral standards as ourselves.

There are some major problems with this view, and I would like to know ...[text shortened]... ers it is wrong to kill while at the same time running around sanctioning mass killings.

We are to set our moral standards based on God's moral standards, as was demonstrated to mankind by the Son of God. We have no authority to set the moral standards of God based only on human devised morals.

HalleluYah ! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
We can make a judgement call on who we think is good or bad. However, we have no authority to do so. All authority in heaven and on Earth and under the Earth has been given to Christ, the Son of God. All judgment has also been given to Christ and He has already judged that only God is good.

The word 'good' is a contrast word. Without 'bad' we cannot have 'good'. If anything God does, is, as Kelly claims, not bad due to the fact that God created everything and thus has the right to do whatever he likes with it, then it is also incorrect to call any of Gods actions 'good'.
God could torture all humanity for eternity and Kelly will say 'that is not bad' because God has the right to do so. Equally one should not say 'that is good' because it simply cannot be contrasted with any alternative action of Gods that would be bad.
Also, one cannot Judge Gods actions (as you claim Christ did) as Gods actions are all neutral. God cannot do wrong but neither can God do right, he can only do.