Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, where did you get that?
Kelly

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 swords through babies; torture infants at length; drive hot pokers into the eye sockets of puppies; etc, etc. These all follow naturally from your view. Based on the bizarre justification you give for why God has the right to do whatsoever with His creation (just because, ipso facto, He created it), your view also entails that you would have the right to do such things as well, supposing you developed the ability to spontaneously create such things.

Do you want to hear another bizarre entailment of your view? Your view also entails that there are no inalienable rights possessed by any creatures. You're clearly committed to the idea that creatures like yourself do not possess, for example, the right to life -- or any other rights for that matter.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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.

So you just took the worst care you can think of and say God could and would
do this for God's good pleasure? Which is it you want to discuss here, God's
nature or God's right? You changed the subject on me, if you want to talk about
the things God would do we can discuss that, if that is the case I can assume
than that we are done talking about God's right to act as God sees fit?
Kelly

Originally posted by Nicksten
None

BZZT. Wrong answer.

Anyone else?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
BZZT. Wrong answer.

Anyone else?

What was your question?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you just took the worst care you can think of and say God could and would
do this for God's good pleasure? Which is it you want to discuss here, God's
nature or God's right? You changed the subject on me, if you want to talk about
the things God would do we can discuss that, if that is the case I can assume
than that we are done talking about God's right to act as God sees fit?
Kelly

Wow, you are so confused!

No, we are still talking about God's right to act. I thought this would have been obvious since I was talking about entailments of your view that deal EXPLICITLY WITH THAT SUBJECT. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Look, if I am going to understand your bizarro notions of divine justice and good, we first need to at least be on the same page regarding the entailments of your view. Are you sure you even understand the implications of your own view? Like I said, its a direct implication of your own view that God has the right to do the things I mentioned, like torturing infants and puppies and whatnot.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm thinking it is your concept of a Christian (excuse me, "theist" ) that is "bizarro".

I am not aware that I made any comment about Christians that might merit your remark. It's very difficult to think of a generalised statement about "Christians" that would be valid and certainly not one that is valid for all Christians. A characteristic which was soon picked up by the Emperor Constantine was the vitriol with which Christians dispute doctrine with each other. He thought it was socially dangerous and summoned the Council of Nicea in the foolish hope of instilling some order into that chaotic religion.

I am aware, for example, that I would find a lot of room for friendly and engaged conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, judging from articles and reviews he has written at various times. I am also aware of the moves to introduce both women and gay / lesbians as Bishops in the Anglican / Episcopalian tradition. Hence it is very easy to agree that this group of Christians, and they are only picked as an example, would recoil from hate speech of any type.

I am not convinced that the right wing Christians currently shouting so loudly in American political life are representative even of American Christians.

Even so, what I did observe in my post was that there are powerful right wing forces using the language of Christianity to promote vile attitudes. intolerant of difference and harmful to democracy or any prospect for a plural, inclusive model of society.

I also think it is valid to make comments about the history of Christianity that are well supported and that happen to conflict with some of the claims made, for example, in this forum. Christianity is not what you would like it to be, in your pleasing self delusions, but is in fact a historical and social phenomenon.

The trouble with holding a private picture of what real Christians ought to be like is that it obliges one to dismiss other Christians as not real and that leaves a bit of a hole. If we cannot call them Christians, then how do we refer to all those millions of self styled Christians currently and historically who fall short of the proposed standard? Anyway, asking who are the real Christians would be a bit like asking "where is Spartacus."

Originally posted by LemonJello
Wow, you are so confused!

No, we are still talking about God's right to act. I thought this would have been obvious since I was talking about entailments of your view that deal [b]EXPLICITLY WITH THAT SUBJECT. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Look, if I am going to understand your bizarro notions of divine justice and good, we first need to at least be on the same pag ...[text shortened]... God has the right to do the things I mentioned, like torturing infants and puppies and whatnot.[/b]

We are talking about God's right to act, but you've changed the subject to
God will behave how? The nature of God and how He will act is a different
topic than what He has a right to do. You can have a king, as king he can
do whatever a king wants, that is a different topic than what type of things
this king he is and the things he will and will not do. So yes, I'm not confused
you; however, have changed the subject from God having a right to do what
He will with His own, to God will use this power to harm babies in an ugly
fashion. Very disgusting of you by the way!
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Wow, you are so confused!

No, we are still talking about God's right to act. I thought this would have been obvious since I was talking about entailments of your view that deal [b]EXPLICITLY WITH THAT SUBJECT. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Look, if I am going to understand your bizarro notions of divine justice and good, we first need to at least be on the same pag ...[text shortened]... God has the right to do the things I mentioned, like torturing infants and puppies and whatnot.[/b]

One place to start might be to inquire what someone means by acting justly (i.e., what that entails), so that we could tell if G’s actions can be considered just—whether G is George, Gloria or God. If it is claimed that “just” means something totally different when applied to God, well then—how, in what way exactly? And I am often quite happy with responses of the sort “Well, I generally mean something like . . .”, as opposed to insisting on precision—especially in the kind of free-wheeling discussions we sometimes have on here. (Of course, precision is sometimes called for, too; and, with regard to a word like “just”, we may need to recognize distributive versus retributive notions, etc.)

If we can simply apply such terms willy-nilly, then we may well end up not really knowing what we’re talking about; and that seems to be one result of bizarro-speech—the one using it really doesn’t know what s/he is talking about, but doesn’t realize it. Similar questions can be asked for words like “faith”, “love”, “freedom”, etc.

And, quite frankly, if I cannot explain how I am using my terms—at least in a general way—then I don’t feel justified in smugly assuming that the other party just doesn’t have the faculty (e.g., one apparent, albeit mysterious, usage of “faith” ) for understanding.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking about God's right to act, but you've changed the subject to
God will behave how? The nature of God and how He will act is a different
topic than what He has a right to do. You can have a king, as king he can
do whatever a king wants, that is a different topic than what type of things
this king he is and the things he will and will not do. use this power to harm babies in an ugly
fashion. Very disgusting of you by the way!
Kelly

At no point has it been asserted "G"od will act out his potential to torture babies, only that with the position you take on this matter we must conclude "G"od is within his rights to torture babies. Indeed, the post of yours I believe kicked off this line of discussion was:

"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."

which as I understand it means:

- having created life, it is true that for the set of all things X "G"od is capable of choosing to do to things that live, "G"od has the right to do X.

But this set of all Xs contains not only the "nice" things like, say, intervening in natural disasters to leave precisely one baby still alive and unharmed, or planting the thought in someones head that they should look after a mis-treated dog, and so on ... but it also contains bad things like gouging babies eyes out or burning them alive, etc...Indeed it contains the entire set of things "G"od could choose to do to things which live as a result of "G"od.
Whether or whether not it will actually do or has done these things is a completely different point which so far only you have brought up.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking about God's right to act, but you've changed the subject to
God will behave how? The nature of God and how He will act is a different
topic than what He has a right to do. You can have a king, as king he can
do whatever a king wants, that is a different topic than what type of things
this king he is and the things he will and will not do. ...[text shortened]... use this power to harm babies in an ugly
fashion. Very disgusting of you by the way!
Kelly

We are talking about God's right to act, but you've changed the subject to
God will behave how?

No, I haven't changed jack. As I said, I am, and have been, talking explicitly about the subject of God's right to act. I have not claimed in my back and forth with you a single thing that has anything to do with the subject of how God will in fact behave.

You have espoused a view which holds that God has the right to do anything whatsoever with His own creation. As I have been saying over and over and over, it is a direct implication of this view of yours that God has the right to X; the right to Y; the right to Z; etc; where X/Y/Z are things like torturing infants, eye-gouging puppies, slaughtering babies, etc. That is just simply a statement of fact regarding the entailments of your view. If you don't like these entailments of your own view, then revise your position. Nowhere in there did I claim anything regarding how God does or will behave. As you said, that is in principle a different matter from the subject of what rights He has.

So, yes you are confused. I never claimed that you are committed to the idea that God will go around torturing infants and puppies. (Though I am not sure why this should concern you if the biblical accounts, taken literally as you do, of His sanctioning genocide, mass killing, infanticide and the like do not already concern you.) I claimed, rather, that you are committed to the idea that He has a right to do so. You are committed to this on the basis of the views you have espoused in this forum; that's a fact. And, if God did go around torturing infants and puppies, He would only be, according to the entailments of your own view, exercising His right to do so. Like I said, if you don't like these implications, then get a different view. The only thing I have been doing here is reflecting back to you the entailments of your very own view. So if you're finding this all "very disgusting", then you may want to rethink your position on God's rights.

Are we on the same page now?

Originally posted by vistesd
One place to start might be to inquire what someone means by acting justly (i.e., what that entails), so that we could tell if G’s actions can be considered just—whether G is George, Gloria or God. If it is claimed that “just” means something totally different when applied to God, well then—how, in what way exactly? And I am often quite happy with respons ...[text shortened]... t have the faculty (e.g., one apparent, albeit mysterious, usage of “faith” ) for understanding.

Right now, I would just be happy if KJ and I could get on the same page regarding the direct implications of his view regarding God's rights. These implications are very straightforward, so hopefully we will be on the same page after KJ responds to my latest clarifications.

Originally posted by Agerg
At no point has it been asserted "G"od [b]will act out his potential to torture babies, only that with the position you take on this matter we must conclude "G"od is within his rights to torture babies. Indeed, the post of yours I believe kicked off this line of discussion was:

[i]"So God who created life can at His will end it or put boundaries
upon i ...[text shortened]... e things is a completely different point which so far only you have brought up.[/b]

I got that, and again God's right to do as He will is one topic.
How, why, for what reasons God does things are different topics.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right now, I would just be happy if KJ and I could get on the same page regarding the direct implications of his view regarding God's rights. These implications are very straightforward, so hopefully we will be on the same page after KJ responds to my latest clarifications.

God's rights and His power give Him the right/ability to do whatever He wants
with what He has. His nature and purposes He has are different topics all
together, if you want to change the topic I will gladly. If all you want to do is
just say if God can do anything and that is one of the things God could
do....well hello spanky duh simply because doing that to babies is just one of
the many things God could do within His rights, what a sick mind you have to
even want to go there.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right now, I would just be happy if KJ and I could get on the same page regarding the direct implications of his view regarding God's rights. These implications are very straightforward, so hopefully we will be on the same page after KJ responds to my latest clarifications.

I think you are debating something quite significant. Since children are in fact tortured and treated abominably in this actual world, never mind in the Old Testament, it is important to a Christian to account for this while asserting that God decides everything that happens on some level. This gets awfully confusing unless you go along with predestination and conclude that everything happens in accordance with God's Plan, as many Christians do of course. While free will is argued incessantly, it is sometimes hard to reconcile with other aspects of Christian teaching. In some ways, it can appear to reduce down to accepting God's Will - Faith is a decision to accept and not resist. In any event, whatever space we allow for free will, we are required to accept that what happens is God's judgement and that naturally invites the question of justification for God's decisions / judgements / plans.

The notion that God is, for example, Just, implies a standard to evaluate God in respect of the value "Just." God might argue that He has a right to act as He does by referring to such an ideal standard. It is hard to say how else He might argue His case without being plain authoritarian. It does not seem a strong argument to say that He acts as He does because He has this really great plan and it will all fit together at the end of time ("Sorry about the torturing children bit - this hurts Me too and anyway, I sent My son to die on the cross so I have it tough as well and that's fair; I feel your pain." )

However, the position taken is that there is no such standard. Justice is what God decides and Good is what God decides and irritating-enough-to-push-into-hell is what God decides. The practical implication is that, when deciding in this actually existing world what is just or right or good, we have to conform to what God has said (in scripture) and not to any socially accepted criteria otherwise. Where God has ommitted to give a specific instruction, then we are invited to allow a religious guide to interpret the sciptures in order to derive a pronouncement in accordance with their highly trained religious reasoning process. Leviticus is a useful starting place for some widely argued Christian social values. Whether it is all or partly out of date is a matter of some dispute - not unlike comparable debates within Islam, who share with Christians a surprisingly similar list of barbaric instructions, which some find embarrassing while others embrace them with enthusiasm.

This is damnably attractive to those who do not wish to be subjected to rational argument about their social values and who wish, at the same time, to be given the authority to impose those standards on others.

To be fair and balanced there are Christians who take the view that Jesus, contrary to his own statement (I have not come to change the Law but .. ), has updated and rendered out of date much of the Old Testament teaching. They might, for example, wish to rebuild a value system around the Golden Rule. However, the trouble with this is that Jesus has not left a sufficient basis for a new religion (nor did he found one) and it was inevitable that Christianity would be a cobbled together mixture of Jewish, Pagan and Greek philosophy, which is found in the New Testament.

Originally posted by KellyJay
God's rights and His power give Him the right/ability to do whatever He wants
with what He has. His nature and purposes He has are different topics all
together, if you want to change the topic I will gladly. If all you want to do is
just say if God can do anything and that is one of the things God could
do....well hello spanky duh simply because doing ...[text shortened]... ngs God could do within His rights, what a sick mind you have to
even want to go there.
Kelly

Are you saying that the God of the Bible never commanded the killing of babies? Or, actually, acted himself to kill babies. (And not in particularly painless ways?) Or are those Biblical stories ones that you do not believe are true?