quote:Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
Isn't rationality about coming to your own conclusions using evidence and reasoning? Patching together a belief system I judge to be right based on my own rational thinking is pretty much exactly what I'd consider rational. Whereas accepting a set of beliefs rigidly, as if it were a Combo Meal at McDonalds, seems to me to be irrational unless there's some compelling reason to believe that dropping one belief from that set invalidates all the others.
Your complaint seems to boil down to the notion that I can't call myself a believer in X if I don't accept everything that someone in the past decided would be included in the package of X. I see that just as a question of terminology - not as a rational way to decide what to believe. If I've found I like my Big Mac with no cheese, I think its irrational to request a Big Mac with cheese just so I call most accurately call my meal by the name of "Big Mac". I think the more rational soluation would be to just order one with no cheese.
...
Keep in mind that I belong to a religious tradition that, just like the scientific method, is intended to be corrected and refined over time - and which offers a methodology through which we can do so. The New Testament focuses on how Jesus shows up and overturns many of the commonly accepted ideas of Jewish religious authorities. He chooses simple men of faith rather than religious scholars as his disciples and preaches a message of having an individual relationship with God. He doesn't say "some of the things the religious scholars are teaching are wrong, so you should reject Jewish teachings altogether". Instead, His story seems to embody the notion that we should question and refine those teachings on our own by having a relationship with God.
I can't speak for all religion, but I do not believe Christianity is designed to be a "cohesive whole" set of beliefs. Rather, I think it is intended to be a method through which to approach the world and find answers as an individual in a relationship with the divine.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My objection is with this association fallacy- you do not have a strong argument in favor of the idea that a religion is responsible for making a person that way, *and* that another organized cultural structure not related to theism or god-based faith would not have the same effect.
I don't understand why it's important to show that religion is the only way that a person can become a certain way. I don't think it is. Also, I absolutely agree that some people's belief systems can lead them to radical, violent behavior. From your post, it seems like you're willing to give religion all of the blame and none of the credit. To me it seems pretty irrefutable that surrounding yourself with people and meetings that constantly reinforce concepts like service will lead to more service. And on the negative side, constantly surrounding yourself with judgmental people who judge will lead to more judgment. I think each religious grouping has it's own emphasis and that absolutely affects the values and behaviors of its adherents. People who choose to fixate only on the negative effects of religion seem to me to be responding with their emotions.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
Isn't rationality about coming to your own conclusions using evidence and reasoning? Patching together a belief system I judge to be right based on my own rational thinking is pretty much exactly what I'd consider rational.
Yeah, I suppose it's *more* rational than just accepting all of it. That doesn't make it more rational than starting from a broader base of ideas. You can build a bridge out of toothpicks if you try hard enough- but you're not starting with the right material.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I can't speak for all religion, but I do not believe Christianity is designed to be a "cohesive whole" set of beliefs. Rather, I think it is intended to be a method through which to approach the world and find answers as an individual in a relationship with the divine.
Well, that more or less speaks to my point. One need not look very hard at Christianity to pick out countless ways in which the Christian tradition works *against* the advancement of reason in favor of the pursuit of dubiously scatterbrained teachings about morality given in an historical context very far removed from our own. We know why science as a set of principles exists, and what it does for us. Religion can be seen, and is seen by many, as existing primarily to perpetuate itself as a power-brokering institution.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My objection is with this association fallacy- you do not have a strong argument in favor of the idea that a religion is responsible for making a person that way, *and* that another organized cultural structure not related to theism or god-based faith would not have the same effect.
I don't understand why it's important to show that religion is the only way that a person can become a certain way. I don't think it is.
To be clear with you- my argument is that it is impossible to actually show this, because it is not true. Because it is not true, that shows the association fallacy I'm talking about- assuming religion makes somebody a certain way. I hope that's clear to you.
Now, if you would like to know why your inability to prove this as a positive correlation is important to me, it is this: Religion may be largely responsible for the way you act, but faith is not. So religion by any other name can have the same effect on you that *your* religion has, without god. That's humanism buddy- that's understanding that it *is* all about the world around you, and how you relate to it, that defines who you are. And you've just offered fairly convincing proof that you are, at least accidentally, a humanist.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you've just offered fairly convincing proof that you are, at least accidentally, a humanist.
I do consider myself a humanist and previously said I was an atheist. I don't really think we're disagreeing on the point you think we are. You say religion isn't the only way to become X and I say you're right, but certain religions do seem quite good at instilling X.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
Isn't rationality about coming to your own conclusions using evidence and reasoning? Patching together a belief system I judge to be right based on my own rational thinking is pretty much exactly what I'd consider rational. Whereas accepting a set of beliefs rigidly, as if it were a Combo Meal at McDonalds, seems to me to be irrational unless there's some compelling reason to believe that dropping one belief from that set invalidates all the others.
Your complaint seems to boil down to the notion that I can't call myself a believer in X if I don't accept everything that someone in the past decided would be included in the package of X. I see that just as a question of terminology - not as a rational way to decide what to believe. If I've found I like my Big Mac with no cheese, I think its irrational to request a Big Mac with cheese just so I call most accurately call my meal by the name of "Big Mac". I think the more rational soluation would be to just order one with no cheese.
...
Keep in mind that I belong to a religious tradition that, just like the scientific method, is intended to be corrected and refined over time - and which offers a methodology through which we can do so. The New Testament focuses on how Jesus shows up and overturns many of the commonly accepted ideas of Jewish religious authorities. He chooses simple men of faith rather than religious scholars as his disciples and preaches a message of having an individual relationship with God. He doesn't say "some of the things the religious scholars are teaching are wrong, so you should reject Jewish teachings altogether". Instead, His story seems to embody the notion that we should question and refine those teachings on our own by having a relationship with God.
I can't speak for all religion, but I do not believe Christianity is designed to be a "cohesive whole" set of beliefs. Rather, I think it is intended to be a method through which to approach the world and find answers as an individual in a relationship with the divine.
I think a big problem with the picking and choosing approach is that you have to believe the whole thing is Divine in the first place.
With Christianity/Judaism - it's difficult to say that God made a mistake and changed His laws. I understand if Jews were bad followers, so God asked others to step in - but to change the rules? Seems weird.
Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
So you can allege that there were problems with transmission and it was corrupted. But if that is the case, then why believe it is true in the first place? It gets less "scientific" and "rational" if you begin to undermine the tradition so that you can pick the parts of the Bible you like.
It's difficult.
(P.S. - I realize that this post puts many of the defensive - so I hope it is read academically and not personally)
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only if you assume that BlackBlade's post was sarcastic. That ambiguity is tricky. It cuts both ways.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
How, indeed? Yet I do not see you arguing that the laws of Leviticus should be enforced as they were originally interpreted, stonings, drivings-forth, and all. Why not?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
How, indeed? Yet I do not see you arguing that the laws of Leviticus should be enforced as they were originally interpreted, stonings, drivings-forth, and all. Why not?
Because we've never spoken about it before.
I believe all of Leviticus, along with its classic interpretation under the Orthodox Jewish tradition is true. And I expect that the enforcement of the law will and should continue in messianic times.
I don't really think humanity will have much a of problem with that when God reveals Himself to everyone, and until then, there is no Jewish court with authority to actually enforce those laws.
One should also realize that in a theocracy where you believe God is a part of your society - the role of courts and punishment has less to do with justice than it does to society standing to live with a sinner. God takes care of justice - the Jewish legal system makes most things incredibly difficult to prove, and a court that issued capital punishment once every 70 years was considered a murderous court.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe all of Leviticus, along with its classic interpretation under the Orthodox Jewish tradition is true. And I expect that the enforcement of the law will and should continue in messianic times.
So you do in fact believe that a man who has anal sex with another man ought to be killed by stoning, and that this is justice? (Never mind the difficulties of proof; for purposes of determining what is just, we may assume that the act was performed in broad daylight on a public street before three rabbis of impeccable character.) Would you, personally, pick up a stone, look a man in the eye, and throw it at him with the intent to kill? Have you imagined the unpleasant crunching sound as the stone hits the skull, and imagined the look of fear and agony in his eyes as you bend to get the next missile? Is this, in your mind, justice?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe all of Leviticus, along with its classic interpretation under the Orthodox Jewish tradition is true. And I expect that the enforcement of the law will and should continue in messianic times.
So you do in fact believe that a man who has anal sex with another man ought to be killed by stoning, and that this is justice? (Never mind the difficulties of proof; for purposes of determining what is just, we may assume that the act was performed in broad daylight on a public street before three rabbis of impeccable character.) Would you, personally, pick up a stone, look a man in the eye, and throw it at him with the intent to kill? Have you imagined the unpleasant crunching sound as the stone hits the skull, and imagined the look of fear and agony in his eyes as you bend to get the next missile? Is this, in your mind, justice?
Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
Part of the act is warning the person, and the person has to acknowledge the warning and that he is doing it anyways.
I believe the messianic age will make it clear to someone like you that God is a Jewish God, etc. etc. If it doesn't end up being clear, there are legal arguments as to why someone like you should not actually deserve the death penalty (educational differences, etc.), and assuming that you can't get off based on those legal arguments, then yes, I'd probably not throw a stone at you since to me it would make no sense why you should be punished.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Part of the act is warning the person, and the person has to acknowledge the warning and that he is doing it anyways.
Wait a sec. What act? The act of stoning is a warning?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Part of the act is warning the person, and the person has to acknowledge the warning and that he is doing it anyways.
Wait a sec. What act? The act of stoning is a warning?
Before someone is liable for the death penalty, two witnesses need to witness him committing the act, warn him before he commits the act, and he needs to respond to the warning confirming that he received the warning.
Without that warning and response, the person is not liable to the death penalty.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So to be clear, when you said "Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure." did you mean you'd be fine with the act of warning someone or the act of stoning someone?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you've just offered fairly convincing proof that you are, at least accidentally, a humanist.
I do consider myself a humanist and previously said I was an atheist. I don't really think we're disagreeing on the point you think we are. You say religion isn't the only way to become X and I say you're right, but certain religions do seem quite good at instilling X.
I couldn't tell which position you were coming from. As to your last point, I feel I must disagree in principle. Religion *can* be good at instilling values of kindness. Religion as a rule, if you take a look at the historical record, not to mention the religions of the world today, could not fairly be said to be so good at this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So to be clear, when you said "Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure." did you mean you'd be fine with the act of warning someone or the act of stoning someone?
In a society in which it is clear that God has revealed Himself to be God and that the Jewish law is His law - I'd be fine with the application of Jewish law to any violations of halacha including homosexual anal penetration.
In order to issue captial punishment, two witnesses would need to catch the homosexuals in the act, warn them that they are violating a law worthy of the death penalty, those committing the act would need to confirm they heard the warning, and continue, and then I would be okay with the issuing of capital punishment.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
A god who wanted us to stone homosexuals ( or anyone else for that matter) could not prove himself to me. I would be certain that it was a false god or that I was mistaken in what god wanted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
May I ask you humbly why you think you are morally superior to Muslims who bomb embassies and airplanes, and beat and kill unchaste women on the streets of their cities?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before someone is liable for the death penalty, two witnesses need to witness him committing the act, warn him before he commits the act, and he needs to respond to the warning confirming that he received the warning.
I've got to say, any two men who get their sex on with each other in front of two straights who've warned them that, if they continue to do so, they'll arrange to have both of them killed -- those men are my heroes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
That would depend on three points. First, do I think the laws just? If the laws are unjust, then I would do my best to avoid them and to overthrow the regime that imposed them; divine or not. And I hope this is also true of you; consider the Aztec gods, for example. The Aztec pantheon demands sacrifice so that they can continue to keep the Sun lit. Would you accept this bargain as just? You might take it as a devil's deal to keep humanity alive; I shall deal with that in a minute. But would you consider it fair that children should die horribly to appease bloodthirsty gods? Would you not work to find a different means of keeping the Sun alive?
Next, there is the issue of credible enforcement. If the god in question set forth unjust laws, but was able to reliably detect my breaking them and punish me, then I might grit my teeth and follow the law, as in the Aztec example.
Finally there is the question of the value of breaking the law. A law against anal sex with men would not particularly inconvenience me; a law against vaginal sex with women would be a huge problem. Of course this does not affect whether the law is just or not; either law would be equally unjust. But as a matter of realism about my own psychology, it is not that likely that I would take up arms against a ban that doesn't really affect me. Sad, but there it is.
The justice of a law does not depend on who wrote it; it depends on what it says. "The choice between Good and Evil does not consist of saying, 'Good!' It consists of saying which is which." You cannot escape this judgement, even if your choice, after all consideration, is "God must have a reason for that law, although he has not revealed it to me". That is itself a choice. An evil one, but a choice; so much judgement you cannot avoid.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
May I ask you humbly why you think you are morally superior to Muslims who bomb embassies and airplanes, and beat and kill unchaste women on the streets of their cities?
Good question.
First, I think they are incorrect in their beliefs, and I think mine are more rational than theirs.
Secondly, according to my beliefs, we can't issue any capital punishment nowadays. There are no Jewish societies, even in most extreme, who issue capital punishment.
You realize that the way I framed things, you would also agree to issue capital punishment in such a situation.
Kmb said that she wouldn't believe in a God who says homosexuality is immoral. But say God reveals Himself to you and does miracle after miracle, shows you He created the world, whatever.
Are we on the same page with respect to how religionists view moral "tests" and how a good God allows evil in the world?
So then that same God explains to you why He created homosexuals and then outlawed homosexual activity, and places it in the same "test" "evil in a good world" framework.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
(In brighter news, at least this is the kind of thing that got Iran kicked off the UN Women's Council)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
That would depend on three points. First, do I think the laws just? If the laws are unjust, then I would do my best to avoid them and to overthrow the regime that imposed them; divine or not. And I hope this is also true of you; consider the Aztec gods, for example. The Aztec pantheon demands sacrifice so that they can continue to keep the Sun lit. Would you accept this bargain as just? You might take it as a devil's deal to keep humanity alive; I shall deal with that in a minute. But would you consider it fair that children should die horribly to appease bloodthirsty gods? Would you not work to find a different means of keeping the Sun alive?
Next, there is the issue of credible enforcement. If the god in question set forth unjust laws, but was able to reliably detect my breaking them and punish me, then I might grit my teeth and follow the law, as in the Aztec example.
Finally there is the question of the value of breaking the law. A law against anal sex with men would not particularly inconvenience me; a law against vaginal sex with women would be a huge problem. Of course this does not affect whether the law is just or not; either law would be equally unjust. But as a matter of realism about my own psychology, it is not that likely that I would take up arms against a ban that doesn't really affect me. Sad, but there it is.
The justice of a law does not depend on who wrote it; it depends on what it says. "The choice between Good and Evil does not consist of saying, 'Good!' It consists of saying which is which." You cannot escape this judgement, even if your choice, after all consideration, is "God must have a reason for that law, although he has not revealed it to me". That is itself a choice. An evil one, but a choice; so much judgement you cannot avoid.
Assume the God is SO powerful that He controls every aspect of existence. He created humanity to give them the gift of the human experience, because He ultimately believes it to be a good thing.
Now, you can't overthrow Him. That's ridiculous. He wipes out anyone who tries to overthrow Him. Now what? Say He outlaws gay sex. He outlaws vaginal sex.
From your perspective, you approach it like God is a man, and the gap of perspectives between you and I is HUGE.
From mine, God is amazing. He created the wealth of human experience. And then He asked us to go and enjoy, except He asks that we limit our enjoyment in certain areas out of recognition to Him. Basically turning us from hedonistic, self-interested creatures into creatures who enjoy life with gratitude to the source of it all.
From that perspective, where God created all, there is no sense of entitlement - Oh vaginal sex, that's a right that even God can't take away. From my perspective, that's silly. Because God is the source of all, his commandments really interest me, and a relationship with Him really interests me. So although there are some painful struggles, curbing sexual desires and the like, they are worth it.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Are you sure this is true? Can you not conceive of an evil and terrible god who created the world to torture its inhabitants? And as soon as you violate his will, he winks you out of existence? Would you say that that god isn't god?
Now I'm not saying that that is my god, but I am saying that I do believe God placed burdens on us. And I believe those burdens are just, and even kind - the yolk of heaven - so to speak. As part of the gift of living in this world, we are asked to curb certain desires.
Does it strike anyone as coincidence that Jews circumcise? I mean, they make a covenant with God on their penises. That has a lot of significance.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
I would respond "Commit your own murders."
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point of order: Jews 'make a covenant' on the penises of their children. I'd be a lot more impressed if it was a voluntary act done to adults, or at least teenagers. No anesthetic, mind you.
You have made a judgement that a creator of the universe has the right to set the laws he likes, and that this is automatically justice. I disagree. When you create autonomous beings, you either treat them as such or you are evil; the fact that you had the power to create them is not relevant. Power is not good nor evil, and does not give the right to set rules; although it may grant the power.
quote:From [my perspective], God is amazing.
Quite so; and what would you do if this were not so? You speak blithely of having vaginal sex forbidden. I suspect that you would not be so blithe about it if you thought it had any prospect of actually happening. Is it not interesting that your god happens to set limits that you can easily deal with, while all the really onerous provisions fall on other people? Justice, indeed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
I would respond "Commit your own murders."
You assume that it is murder for God who created the entire universe, including that person to make a law that if you do something He doesn't like, they get the death penalty?
Does God "murder" 88 year old men and women as they die of old age? Or is it a problem only because they are dying because they violated His will?
I mean, for a second, put yourself in this situation, because I honestly don't think you're appreciating the gravity of what a life-changing and perspective-changing event it would be.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does God "murder" 88 year old men and women as they die of old age? Or is it a problem only because they are dying because they violated His will?
I would say yes, except if I'm accepting God's existence I'm probably also accepting some kind of afterlife.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I mean, for a second, put yourself in this situation, because I honestly don't think you're appreciating the gravity of what a life-changing and perspective-changing event it would be.
I'm appreciating it.
If the god in this hypothetical is responsible for killing everyone, then why does he need me to do it for him? The second to gay men become touch each other intimately, why doesn't God make them explode?
Or rather, why not just transform me into a bloodthirsty zealot who would follow any order given to him by a god? I wouldn't be me anymore, but God would get what he wanted.
If God revealed himself to me and told me to kill, I would refuse. Regardless of his god-ness. And if I was punished for such a thing, so be it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of order: Jews 'make a covenant' on the penises of their children. I'd be a lot more impressed if it was a voluntary act done to adults, or at least teenagers. No anesthetic, mind you.
You have made a judgement that a creator of the universe has the right to set the laws he likes, and that this is automatically justice. I disagree. When you create autonomous beings, you either treat them as such or you are evil; the fact that you had the power to create them is not relevant. Power is not good nor evil, and does not give the right to set rules; although it may grant the power.
quote:From [my perspective], God is amazing.
Quite so; and what would you do if this were not so? You speak blithely of having vaginal sex forbidden. I suspect that you would not be so blithe about it if you thought it had any prospect of actually happening. Is it not interesting that your god happens to set limits that you can easily deal with, while all the really onerous provisions fall on other people? Justice, indeed.
Not sure why you need for there to be no anesthetic for it to be impressive. It's the symbolism that is impressive, not the pain endured.
Your assumption is that a creator can't set laws. Can we argue this for a moment? I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator. Limitations of autonomy are inherently evil? Why is this so?
And lastly, your assumptions about my own moral struggles are unfair. There are plenty of painful limitations on my own life, and your insinuation that I'm happy with the limitations because they only fall on others is utterly false.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does God "murder" 88 year old men and women as they die of old age? Or is it a problem only because they are dying because they violated His will?
I would say yes, except if I'm accepting God's existence I'm probably also accepting some kind of afterlife.
So it is immoral for God to create any being who isn't immortal?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Are you sure this is true? Can you not conceive of an evil and terrible god who created the world to torture its inhabitants? And as soon as you violate his will, he winks you out of existence? Would you say that that god isn't god?
Now I'm not saying that that is my god, but I am saying that I do believe God placed burdens on us. And I believe those burdens are just, and even kind - the yolk of heaven - so to speak. As part of the gift of living in this world, we are asked to curb certain desires.
Does it strike anyone as coincidence that Jews circumcise? I mean, they make a covenant with God on their penises. That has a lot of significance.
Of course, I can conceive of such an entity. I do not believe that is god. Plenty of things could pretend to be god, have powers I don't understand, even (I imagine) create worlds or wink people in and out of existance. Doesn't make them God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
I think this has to be shown. I'm not seeing the moral case that Data has live in gratitude of Dr. Soong for example.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I mean, for a second, put yourself in this situation, because I honestly don't think you're appreciating the gravity of what a life-changing and perspective-changing event it would be.
I'm appreciating it.
If the god in this hypothetical is responsible for killing everyone, then why does he need me to do it for him? The second to gay men become touch each other intimately, why doesn't God make them explode?
Or rather, why not just transform me into a bloodthirsty zealot who would follow any order given to him by a god? I wouldn't be me anymore, but God would get what he wanted.
If God revealed himself to me and told me to kill, I would refuse. Regardless of his god-ness. And if I was punished for such a thing, so be it.
God wants to build a relationship with you, and with the people He revealed Himself to. In order for your relationship to be worth anything, it needs to be earned. He created you to be autonomous so that you could actually work on your relationship and not be a computer program (i.e. an angel). As such, He created you with competing desires, and asks of you that you express your love of God by choosing the desires that are congruous with His. That's why He doesn't transform you into things.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
I think this has to be shown. I'm not seeing the moral case that Data has live in gratitude of Dr. Soong for example.
Or to worship him or think Dr. Soong is god.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Are you sure this is true? Can you not conceive of an evil and terrible god who created the world to torture its inhabitants? And as soon as you violate his will, he winks you out of existence? Would you say that that god isn't god?
Now I'm not saying that that is my god, but I am saying that I do believe God placed burdens on us. And I believe those burdens are just, and even kind - the yolk of heaven - so to speak. As part of the gift of living in this world, we are asked to curb certain desires.
Does it strike anyone as coincidence that Jews circumcise? I mean, they make a covenant with God on their penises. That has a lot of significance.
Of course, I can conceive of such an entity. I do not believe that is god. Plenty of things could pretend to be god, have powers I don't understand, even (I imagine) create worlds or wink people in and out of existance. Doesn't make them God.
Ok. This happens a bunch when you and i discuss morality. I don't know how to bring the conversation beyond this point. I'm not really sure what the hang up is or how to help you see my perspective or to see yours.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I would treat this situation pretty much identically to one where an incredibly powerful alien race descends to Earth and commands, among other things, that left-handed children be flayed.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
