Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Originally posted by vistesd
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?

Everyone on this planet that lives today or ever lived either has or will die one
way or another with limited exceptions. Death through what we call natural
causes, accidents, murders, illnesses and so on take oh so many lives. What
you suggested was that God just tortures because He wants to. So for you I'm
assuming that death before age X is always worse than after, even though
death is still the end result. A life ended at 8 days or 80 years is still a life that
was ended, if it was done in battle or due to a storm it is still death.

I believe scripture, context required, and I've no doubt that when God said kill
all, that all were killed. Those same people would have died one way or another
since it happened so many thousand years ago, and I'm assuming had we not
known why or what the causes were you'd be okay with that?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Everyone on this planet that lives today or ever lived either has or will die one
way or another with limited exceptions. Death through what we call natural
causes, accidents, murders, illnesses and so on take oh so many lives. What
you suggested was that God just tortures because He wants to. So for you I'm
assuming that death before age X is always wo ...[text shortened]... d I'm assuming had we not
known why or what the causes were you'd be okay with that?
Kelly

I was not making a specific “age” argument. I was responding to your post in which you said that LJ must have a sick mind if he thought that God’s right/ability to cause babies to experience tortuous deaths, means he would do so. I am saying that, according to the Bible, he did so. You know the stories as well as I do. If you want to pretend that the babies of Sodom did not suffer, or the babies who drowned in the flood, or the babies that Joshua obediently killed—and inject that pretense into the text—then fine. But you have little right to call LJ sick on that account…

Originally posted by finnegan
I am not aware that I made any comment about Christians that might merit your remark.

Maybe that's because my remark was pointed at twhitehead (whose message I replied to). My reply was short because I was referring to the entirety of his remarks characterizing Christians talking in a certain way because they must have some ulterior motive. "Bizarro" was the word he used, and I was merely suggesting that his comments on Christians being not "true" were not only incorrect on their face, but yes, bizarre.

I am not aware that I made any comment about you, or anything you've said, that might merit your remarks.

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

I'm not sure why you are calling me of sick mind, when it is in fact *your* view that entails that there exists an agent who has the right to go around driving swords through babies and puppies. I subscribe to no such view; but somehow I am the sicko here? Like I said, the things I have pointed out are simply entailments of *your* own view, so you are married to them whether you like it or not unless you revise your position.

You are correct when you state that what God has the right to do and what God in fact does are two separate things. So, you can hold that although God has the right to go around chopping off boys' heads and having sex with what is left of their corpses, this doesn't mean that He will do such a thing. However, notwithstanding, you still have some major, major problems here. They include all the following:

(1) According to your own accounts, specifically those of the bible which you take literally, He has already engaged in a number of seemingly atrocious things, like mass killing, genocide, infanticide, etc.

(2) Rights do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they have reaching prescriptive entailments, and you may not completely understand the ramifications. When you say that God has the right to do whatever with His creatures, that entails some significant things about his creatures. First, it entails that His creatures have no rights whatsoever. For example, if you had the right to life, that would mean that all other moral agents have a general obligation to not deprive you of life. Clearly, if God has the right to deprive you of life (which is an entailment of your view), then it cannot be the case that He has an obligation not do so. So, then under your view, you can have no right to life. This argument extends to other rights as well, so you can have no rights at all. Second, it entails that none of His creatures are moral patients. Moral patients are such that it matters how they get treated, and not just derivatively so. One would think that a person who can suffer and be harmed, etc, would be a moral patient, such that others have general obligations regarding their treatment and the minimization of pain and suffering, etc. But, on your view, no that cannot be the case. If God has the right to treat a person any old way whatever, then it simply cannot be the case that this person is a moral patient. Third, and relatedly, your view entails that none of God's creature have any inherent or intrinsic value. If God has the right to treat them just any old way whatever, then whatever value they have can be at best derivative or instrumental. If they actually had intrinsic value, then there would be abiding reasons in virtue of which all others agents had general obligations regarding their treatment and to view them as ends in themselves. But on your view, of course, this cannot be the case, since God has the right to treat them any old way whatever.

(3) Disregarding point (1) above for a second and even supposing that you claim that God would never carry out such atrocities as driving swords through babies; that really doesn't relieve any tension in your view. The fact remains that, according to your view, if God were to go around driving swords through babies, that would be fully within His rights. The fact that He wouldn't do such a thing (supposing for a second that it is a fact) is not really relevant. The point remains, your conceptions of justice and right action, etc, must be compatible with the idea that if He did go around bashing babies' heads off concrete walls, such would not be discordant with just and right action. This idea is rather absurd, though. Hence, the charge of bizarro usage. It's all rather bizarre to claim that one has the right to X; and then in the next breath say "Oh but he would never X because that is just unthinkable, and you're just a sicko for even bringing the idea of X up!!!" Don't you think?

(4) You protest when I bring up actions like driving swords through babies and puppies. But, first of all, as I have said, it's *your* view that entails that such things are within God's rights. Secondly, you can have no actual basis for saying that God would never do such things. After all, if you tell me that God would never, ever chop off boys' heads and have sex with their corpses, I will ask you why not. Then you would actually have to provide reasons in virtue of which God would never choose to do such a thing. But, then, I will simply ask you why those same reasons do not dictate that God has no right to do such a thing in the first place. And you will have no good answer. That's a general problem with bizarro views.

Originally posted by finnegan
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 ...[text shortened]... her mixture of Jewish, Pagan and Greek philosophy, which is found in the New Testament.

Yes, you bring up very good points related to the subject of theodicy. And I think what you bring up here relates centrally to both the problem of evil and the Euthyphro dilemma, which are two of my favorites.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not sure why you are calling me of sick mind, when it is in fact *your* view that entails that there exists an agent who has the right to go around driving swords through babies and puppies. I subscribe to no such view; but somehow I am the sicko here? Like I said, the things I have pointed out are simply entailments of *your* own view, so you are m ...[text shortened]... And you will have no good answer. That's a general problem with bizarro views.

You know, I think this is as close to the marrow of this whole issue as we have ever gotten to on here. Kudos!

But, as I review your post here, it strikes me that it might be relevant to make a clear distinction between “sovereign rights”—which might just be better termed “sovereign authority”—and moral rights (e.g., as in “right and just action” ). Kings of old may have been seen as having the “sovereign authority” to do things that were nevertheless considered morally wrong.

When KJ speaks of God’s rights “to do whatever”, I think he might be speaking in terms of “sovereign right/authority”. This is not, of itself, a historically invalid use of the word “rights”. But it cannot be conflated with moral right, without sinking into bizarro-speech. As you know from my “past lives” on here, I have more than once made the quite traditional Jewish point (based on Torah) that, as beings of moral conscience, we are not relieved of our responsibility to challenge even God in the face of perceived moral violations (even on the sacrifice of that goat!). [Not the life I am currently in, however.]

I think that you successfully deconstruct it here, either way. But if KJ is using “right”, as applied to God, as meaning “sovereign authority” (again, a valid usage historically), then acknowledging that might at least make the distinctions clear. Then again, if KJ or other theists making similar arguments, insist that the two conceptions come to the same thing when applied to the Biblical God (in the context of any kind of Biblical literalism)—well, then I don’t know what is left to say beyond what you have said here.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not sure why you are calling me of sick mind, when it is in fact *your* view that entails that there exists an agent who has the right to go around driving swords through babies and puppies. I subscribe to no such view; but somehow I am the sicko here? Like I said, the things I have pointed out are simply entailments of *your* own view, so you are m ...[text shortened]... And you will have no good answer. That's a general problem with bizarro views.

Rights, you have rights before your Creator...really? Someone promise you
tomorrow?

So tell me as I pointed out before, death is a part of this life at this time. God
setup the universe so everyone who dies is simply going through the process
NO MATTER how they die. So if God setup our lives that we are going to die
how can you say God engaged in mass killing, genocide, infanticide, etc? No
one was promised an eternal life yet, but you seem to think they were?

Rights don't exist in a vacuum, but tell me how do you command God to do
anything or force Him into any agreement? What right did you acquire that God
is bound to, and who gave that to you, where did these rights you seem to
cling to come from? I agree unless God binds Himself to a deal or agreement
with us we are without remedy before God, and you can go to no other for help
to save you from His hand period.

I'll say that God did bind himself to us through His Son Jesus Christ, from that
we go Him. We also can trust God too, but know nothing in this life did we bring
in and nothing are we going to take with us either.

You again trash God and me by saying I have to accept God doing something
as bad as bashing in babies heads into walls. I believe God is love yet you drag
Him and me into the dirt with such evil things. I'll bet your point could have
been made a million ways without going there, but there you go again.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
I was not making a specific “age” argument. I was responding to your post in which you said that LJ must have a sick mind if he thought that God’s right/ability to cause babies to experience tortuous deaths, means he would do so. I am saying that, according to the Bible, he did so. You know the stories as well as I do. If you want to pretend that the bab ...[text shortened]... at pretense into the text—then fine. But you have little right to call LJ sick on that account…

We were talking about the right of God to act.
That point could have been made a million ways, he choose babies.
If he wanted to change the topic to talk about the Bible stories that could also
have happened even changing it to the OT stories too.
I've not denied anything from OT scripture, I don't pretend to like the things
done there either.

So if God instead of having people killed, you think He should have made them
all die in their sleep would that have made the judgment seem pretty to you or
siomething?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Rights don't exist in a vacuum, but tell me how do you command God to do
anything or force Him into any agreement?

This reminds me of a thread titled "might makes right" in which it was argued that if you had the power to do something and get away with it then it was morally right.

Originally posted by vistesd
But, as I review your post here, it strikes me that it might be relevant to make a clear distinction between “sovereign rights”—which might just be better termed “sovereign authority”—and moral rights (e.g., as in “right and just action” ). Kings of old may have been seen as having the “sovereign authority” to do things that were nevertheless considered morally wrong.

Can we explore that a bit further? What do you mean when you say “sovereign rights”? Do you mean the king is within his legal rights and thus will not be punished by the law? So are we essentially talking about the difference between legal rights and moral rights? Its interesting to note that legality to some degree affects our moral judgement of certain acts.

Originally posted by vistesd
You know, I think this is as close to the marrow of this whole issue as we have ever gotten to on here. Kudos!

But, as I review your post here, it strikes me that it might be relevant to make a clear distinction between “sovereign rights”—which might just be better termed “sovereign authority”—and moral rights (e.g., as in “right and just action” ). Kin ...[text shortened]... Biblical literalism)—well, then I don’t know what is left to say beyond what you have said here.

Yes you raise an excellent point, and I do understand what you mean when you talk about "sovereign rights". However, I have thought about this previously, and I do not think (and have never thought) that it actually squares with KellyJay's claims as I understand them. Several reasons I could probably mention for this, but the main ones relate to what you have mentioned about the distinction between "sovereign right" and "moral right". When one knowingly talks about sovereign right in this sense, he also acknowledges that it is still a further question when or not the exercise of sovereign right is morally justified. (As you point out, if he fails to acknowledge this, then he is making an error because it is not warranted to simply conflate the two; if it were warranted to conflate them, there could be no such thing as tyranny, along with other bizarro entailments). But this is something to which KellyJay has never been even remotely sympathetic. In my opinion, there has always been a strong (if at times implicit) implication in his claims that there simply is no such further question. You can try to tease out this distinction (and I have tried several times in the past) by asking something of him like "If God were to exercise what you claim is His right to X, would(n't) that be morally wrong of Him?" I already know what the nature of his response will be: KJ will be appalled that you would have nerve to even ask such a thing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Rights, you have rights before your Creator...really? Someone promise you
tomorrow?

So tell me as I pointed out before, death is a part of this life at this time. God
setup the universe so everyone who dies is simply going through the process
NO MATTER how they die. So if God setup our lives that we are going to die
how can you say God engaged in ma oint could have
been made a million ways without going there, but there you go again.
Kelly

Rights, you have rights before your Creator...really?

Okay, so you're fine with the entailment of your view that you and all other creatures have absolutely no rights. If that is satisfactory to you, then whatever.

God
setup the universe so everyone who dies is simply going through the process
NO MATTER how they die.

So it doesn't matter how persons die? Really? I thought some deaths involved much more pain, suffering, etc, than others. You do not take such things to matter?

So if God setup our lives that we are going to die
how can you say God engaged in mass killing, genocide, infanticide, etc?

I can say that for the purpose of our debate because it's what your own accounts indicate under literal interpretation. I thought you knew that already.

Rights don't exist in a vacuum, but tell me how do you command God to do
anything or force Him into any agreement? What right did you acquire that God
is bound to, and who gave that to you, where did these rights you seem to
cling to come from?

I think you're a bit confused on the nature of rights. They don't exist merely in virtue of agreement; and they are not conferred by virtue of another. They are not established by agreement or fiat. If a right exists, it does so regardless of what agents think about it. Otherwise, the obligations that attend rights would not be binding. If you think otherwise, then your view devolves into a sort of moral skepticism where there basically can be no moral obligations at all. So, these questions really seem to miss the mark.

You again trash God and me by saying I have to accept God doing something
as bad as bashing in babies heads into walls.

I did not say you have to accept God's doing something like that; but, you are committed to its being God's right to do something like that. I deny that I have trashed God, and I deny that I have trashed you. After all, all I did was state and elaborate on some entailments of your very own view. They have nothing even remotely to do with how I personally view God (I think He is a non-existent) or yourself (I think you're a great guy).

Why do you think I bring up shocking examples like that? I am trying to make localized consistency arguments where I essentially say, alright, if you claim X, then that commits you to Y; and, guess what, Y is totally and utterly absurd. If I did this perfectly convincingly, you would say oh yeah, you're right Y is totally absurd, so there must be something wrong with X. At least that is the intention. Alas, it doesn't always pan out.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Rights, you have rights before your Creator...really? Someone promise you
tomorrow?

So tell me as I pointed out before, death is a part of this life at this time. God
setup the universe so everyone who dies is simply going through the process
NO MATTER how they die. So if God setup our lives that we are going to die
how can you say God engaged in ma ...[text shortened]... oint could have
been made a million ways without going there, but there you go again.
Kelly

Changed your mind on abortion? or have you always been pro choice?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Changed your mind on abortion? or have you always been pro choice?

What in the world are you talking about, where did that come from?
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Rights, you have rights before your Creator...really?

Okay, so you're fine with the entailment of your view that you and all other creatures have absolutely no rights. If that is satisfactory to you, then whatever.

God
setup the universe so everyone who dies is simply going through the process
NO MATTER how they die.

So it doesn ...[text shortened]... hing wrong with X. At least that is the intention. Alas, it doesn't always pan out.[/b]

Let me come back to this later, but say this to you first.
I'm sorry I went off on you my bad I will not offer an excuse.
Kelly