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.
I don't know who that is. But I think it's pretty simple. You, everything, wouldn't exist without God. You enjoy living. So you owe a debt of gratitude to God.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 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.
Then, being autonomous, I choose not to have a relationship with a being that wants me to kill for it. If he wants a relationship, he can stop wanting to kill people for homosexuality or other non-harmful actions.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| 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.
I assume you're atheist because you're a rational person. Assume that science proves that there is a God and that that God proves Himself to you in a number of ways.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the symbolism that is impressive, not the pain endured.
Pff. The symbolism of sacrificing someone else's body parts impresses me as much as the symbolism of crucifying someone innocent for the sins of the guilty.
quote:Your assumption is that a creator can't set laws. Can we argue this for a moment?
A creator may certainly set laws. But this does not make them just laws. If I make a world, and populate it with thinking, feeling beings, and set their laws, are those laws automatically just? Of course not. You persist in judging god-set laws differently because they are connected to this power word, 'God', which you do not allow yourself to feel negative emotions about. A law is a law; its source does not matter, only its justice matters.
quote: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.
Gratitude has limits. If I create conscious beings for use as torture toys, to indulge my sadistic desire to inflict pain, are they still obliged to feel grateful to me for their existence?
quote: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.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't know who that is. But I think it's pretty simple. You, everything, wouldn't exist without God. You enjoy living. So you owe a debt of gratitude to God.
I owe a debt of gratitude to my parents as well. I won't kill for them either, except in the extreme possibility of defending their lives. So, unless homosexuals are killing this hypothetical deity...of course, how would he be a deity if he could be killed?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 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.
Then, being autonomous, I choose not to have a relationship with a being that wants me to kill for it. If he wants a relationship, he can stop wanting to kill people for homosexuality or other non-harmful actions.
posted
Armoth, I do understand your perspective. I just think that it is wrong. I have an advantage in that I am not tied to understanding God the way Moses or Abraham would have. And I have read a lot of science fiction. God is bigger than you imagine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't know who that is. But I think it's pretty simple. You, everything, wouldn't exist without God. You enjoy living. So you owe a debt of gratitude to God.
Ok, if you don't know that example (seriously???), human-form replicators and the ancients? R2D2 and some anonymous Naboo person? Replicants and Tyrell? Cylons and Zoe?
I'm just not seeing it as obvious that there should be gratitude involved in any of these cases.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| 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.
Speaking as a Catholic, so would I.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is it likely that Javert would marry someone who required that he kill people? You are presumably heading for some sort of necessity-of-compromise argument, wherein any relationship worth having needs a bit of sacrifice. True, but come now! There's a difference between not leaving the toilet seat up, and going out to kill random strangers. Can we please recognise some difference of degree, here? Gratitude, likewise, is a fine thing but has its limits.
Further, what compromises is your god making for this relationship?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the symbolism that is impressive, not the pain endured.
Pff. The symbolism of sacrificing someone else's body parts impresses me as much as the symbolism of crucifying someone innocent for the sins of the guilty.
quote:Your assumption is that a creator can't set laws. Can we argue this for a moment?
A creator may certainly set laws. But this does not make them just laws. If I make a world, and populate it with thinking, feeling beings, and set their laws, are those laws automatically just? Of course not. You persist in judging god-set laws differently because they are connected to this power word, 'God', which you do not allow yourself to feel negative emotions about. A law is a law; its source does not matter, only its justice matters.
quote: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.
Gratitude has limits. If I create conscious beings for use as torture toys, to indulge my sadistic desire to inflict pain, are they still obliged to feel grateful to me for their existence?
quote: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.
I don't believe you.
I consider negative feeling towards a god. If a god rules through punishment and terror and sadism, I'd only be interested in serving him to the extent to which I could avoid pain.
However, I believe that as long as I have a desire to live, and I enjoy life, that certain commandments that curb my autonomy for the sake of gratitude to the creator are indeed moral. Once it moves to an imbalance to the point where I no longer am interested in life, then I have no imperative to be gracious.
And your lack of belief about my own struggles - we'll just have to leave it at that. I can't exactly convince you unless you were to come to know me better.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once it moves to an imbalance to the point where I no longer am interested in life, then I have no imperative to be gracious.
Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Is it likely that Javert would marry someone who required that he kill people? You are presumably heading for some sort of necessity-of-compromise argument, wherein any relationship worth having needs a bit of sacrifice. True, but come now! There's a difference between not leaving the toilet seat up, and going out to kill random strangers. Can we please recognise some difference of degree, here? Gratitude, likewise, is a fine thing but has its limits.
Further, what compromises is your god making for this relationship?
Forget leaving the toilet seat up. What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair? And if she is annoyed by it, then she should get over it, because you aren't hurting anyone.
Gratitude does have its limits. It is limited to the point where the gift you have been given turns out to be pretty lousy.
Surely we can agree that if God made you eat only kosher, there is plenty to be gracious about. What if he makes you be vegan, or is that too much to flip the balance for you? Forbidding certain types of sexual relationships still leaves the balance of gratitude on God's side. And so forth, until it flips, and then you have an evil and terrible god whom you simply have to avoid so he doesn't kill you, or maybe you want to be killed, as long as you aren't tortured for eternity, etc.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, If science were to somehow prove that it really really was God, I would consider that information important tactically, but unimportant morally. Anyway, you already have your hands full and my points are mostly being made for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Kmbboots, Cool, we can start a club against the flaying of left-handed children. Got any catchy names?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Armoth, If science were to somehow prove that it really really was God, I would consider that information important tactically, but unimportant morally. Anyway, you already have your hands full and my points are mostly being made for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Kmbboots, Cool, we can start a club against the flaying of left-handed children. Got any catchy names?
Well I appreciate the dialogue. This forum is always good for making me consider and reconsider my own points. I hope others can also see things from my perspective. I imagine that other, uh, religious extremists, might share their perspectives a little differently.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once it moves to an imbalance to the point where I no longer am interested in life, then I have no imperative to be gracious.
Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
quote:What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair?
The right that I freely granted her, in exchange for my right likewise to limit her! Come now. This is a silly argument which you cannot really believe; do try to keep some sort of equivalence in your comparisons.
quote:
quote:Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Yes.
Good. Then our argument is not over whether any restriction whatsoever can be just, but whether the particular restrictions that your god is said to impose are just. Right?
Suppose for a moment that your enjoyment of life can be measured on a scale from negative to positive 100, where any negative number means you want it to end. Your assertion seems to be that any restriction which does not move the number into the negatives is fair, and that you're still obliged to be grateful. Is that correct?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it is immoral for God to create any being who isn't immortal?
If you have the ability to create an immortal being, then choosing to create a being who isn't immortal who doesn't want to die, yes I think that's inherently morally wrong.
If God isn't truly omnipotent there's a lot more wiggle room. If he only has a finite amount of lifespan to hand out to people, or if he simply can't create immortals, or can only create a limited number of immortals, that would certainly be acceptable.
I would also note, however, that I don't necessarily judge an omnipotent being as EVIL for not being perfect. Humans (myself included) do a lot of things that are blatantly evil when looked at on an absolute scale. But I don't judge humans on an absolute scale because it's not productive.
On the same note, I can forgive a God for having a hard time truly empathizing with and doing everything he can to help people who are so far beneath him that they might as well be ants. But I also cannot call that God perfect, and would not worship him as such.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll also note that the argument can be made that it's MORE immoral for God not to make anyone rather than to make a bunch of mortals. (I disagree with the argument but it's a fundamental difference of axioms that I can't prove). That doesn't absolve God of creating someone fated to die though.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair?
The right that I freely granted her, in exchange for my right likewise to limit her! Come now. This is a silly argument which you cannot really believe; do try to keep some sort of equivalence in your comparisons.
quote:
quote:Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Yes.
Good. Then our argument is not over whether any restriction whatsoever can be just, but whether the particular restrictions that your god is said to impose are just. Right?
Suppose for a moment that your enjoyment of life can be measured on a scale from negative to positive 100, where any negative number means you want it to end. Your assertion seems to be that any restriction which does not move the number into the negatives is fair, and that you're still obliged to be grateful. Is that correct?
On the latter point - yes.
Put the two points together and it shouldn't matter that it was an exchange of rights and obligations. My assertion is that as long as the moral gratitude imperative exists - limitations can still be moral. The proof is that you agreed to let your wife limit you - you don't think that is immoral. So limitations are not immoral - the price of the limitations can sometimes be so burdensome that they are immoral, but otherwise, as long as the balance sheet isn't in the red, we're all good.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ding! I agreed, precisely! When did I sign up for your god's covenant? There is no symmetry between an agreement between adults, and a fiat from on high.
quote:So limitations are not immoral - the price of the limitations can sometimes be so burdensome that they are immoral
Very good, now we are at least within the realm of rational discussion. Let us now look at the part of the scale that goes from 0 to 100; 0, I remind you, is where life is just about worth living - just one more bad thing and you give up and shoot yourself. Is it really fair for a god to create limitations that would place your life at zero? What if he creates limitations that put your life at 80, or even 100, but someone else's at 0? Is this just?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ding! I agreed, precisely! When did I sign up for your god's covenant? There is no symmetry between an agreement between adults, and a fiat from on high.
quote:So limitations are not immoral - the price of the limitations can sometimes be so burdensome that they are immoral
Very good, now we are at least within the realm of rational discussion. Let us now look at the part of the scale that goes from 0 to 100; 0, I remind you, is where life is just about worth living - just one more bad thing and you give up and shoot yourself. Is it really fair for a god to create limitations that would place your life at zero? What if he creates limitations that put your life at 80, or even 100, but someone else's at 0? Is this just?
First, before we continue. Don't talk down to me. No more "Dings" "Come nows" or "We're finally beginning to speak rationally."
Your agreeing isn't necessary. Your agreeing is just a proxy to determine value. If we can objectively determine value, your agreement isn't necessary.
As for imbalances - yes. That is immoral. My understanding is that God balances it all out in the afterlife.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it is immoral for God to create any being who isn't immortal?
If you have the ability to create an immortal being, then choosing to create a being who isn't immortal who doesn't want to die, yes I think that's inherently morally wrong.
If God isn't truly omnipotent there's a lot more wiggle room. If he only has a finite amount of lifespan to hand out to people, or if he simply can't create immortals, or can only create a limited number of immortals, that would certainly be acceptable.
I would also note, however, that I don't necessarily judge an omnipotent being as EVIL for not being perfect. Humans (myself included) do a lot of things that are blatantly evil when looked at on an absolute scale. But I don't judge humans on an absolute scale because it's not productive.
On the same note, I can forgive a God for having a hard time truly empathizing with and doing everything he can to help people who are so far beneath him that they might as well be ants. But I also cannot call that God perfect, and would not worship him as such.
quote: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.
With the discussion having devolved to Armoth defending his beliefs to everyone, I wanted to go back and say that I agree with his original post.
That's not to say I am giving Armoth's beliefs a pass, I think they are scary and problematic in their own way. I just also think his criticism for this kind of "pick and choose" religious thought is also spot on.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your agreeing isn't necessary. Your agreeing is just a proxy to determine value. If we can objectively determine value, your agreement isn't necessary.
Wrong. The agreement also has value in itself, as an expression of my autonomy. If an arrangement is made without my consent, then my autonomy is violated even if that arrangement genuinely is good for me; even if, upon knowledge of all the facts, I would indeed consent. If I do not have the genuine power to say no, then I am not an autonomous being, I am a meat puppet. And what is more, who is this 'we'? Why should I trust your god to 'objectively' determine my values? The very point at issue is whether I trust this god to run my life or not; to say that it gets to set the rules is immoral right there.
quote:As for imbalances - yes. That is immoral. My understanding is that God balances it all out in the afterlife.
It follows then that a homosexual who resisted his urges all his life would have a better afterlife than you, no? With, presumably, pie; or perhaps even jam and crumpets. Again, however, the injustice arises from the lack of agreement. If someone agreed to have a tougher mortal life in exchange for a better afterlife, that's one thing. But there is no agreement, and thus no autonomy.
Further, your god 'wants a relationship', and if you don't have one, what happens? You cease to exist, or alternatively are tortured forever, right? Now it's one thing not to have a relationship of equals, but this is ridiculous. It's no relationship at all when one party can either try to follow the rules the other sets, or else die! That's tyranny, not friendship. Or do you assert that your god is willing that people should turn away from it, and nonetheless have some sort of afterlife that doesn't involve actual torture? A parent may reasonably set the rules for a child, for some time, until the child is old enough to live by itself. But this does not extend to eternity; children grow up, and may then, if they choose, move away and cut off contact with their parents, without dying for it.
"Heaven weeps, but free will is sacred"; where is the 'relationship' when the lesser party has a gun held to its head?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
With the discussion having devolved to Armoth defending his beliefs to everyone, I wanted to go back and say that I agree with his original post.
That's not to say I am giving Armoth's beliefs a pass, I think they are scary and problematic in their own way. I just also think his criticism for this kind of "pick and choose" religious thought is also spot on.
It is not that simple. There are methods to the "picking and choosing" it is a whole field of study. The Bible is not all one seamless book; it is a collection of sacred writings spanning centuries. One has to take into account who was doing the writing, what the audience was, what the context was, what literary conventions were common, what the purpose was in writing whatever it was (rules, letters, poems, stories) and many other factors. Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
No. Just no. Frankly, I was put off by the way you were talking down to him and I agreed with all the points you were making. Honestly there is no excuse for you to communicate the way you have in this thread.
I can at least understand your logic when you call people delusional or ignorant or whatever. At least that's factually accurate from your perspective (and often, from mine as well). And I get that you feel society shouldn't tolerate ridiculous arguments or feel obligated to respect them for the sake of argument. (In some ways I think you're right, but in a very complicated way that I don't think you fully appreciate)
But the "ding!s" and the "finaly!s" are not necessary for that. They serve NO purpose other than to belittle the other participant. Anyone other than Armoth problem would have given up on the conversation (at least as a serious attempt at discourse).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice the picking and choosing I usually see is entirely based on what the person picking and choosing likes rather than on what is factually probable.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice the picking and choosing I usually see is entirely based on what the person picking and choosing likes rather than on what is factually probable.
Like what? I am happy (as far as my meager knowledge of Biblical exegeis goes) to explore specifices with you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically I just haven't met someone who cited "this section of the bible is unlikely to be needed to be taken seriously because of these theological reasons" as their reason for not believing you should stone people to death for cursing their parents. They just mutter "oh, they were living in a different time," without making any effort to explain why, if we're ignoring THAT portion of scripture, we're still taking some other portion seriously.
They may well be people who HAVE made a more in depth analysis of the writings, I just haven't met them.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are out there. If you are really interested in this, there are a couple of books I could recommend. For some of the "big ticket" issues like slavery and homosexuality, I would suggest reading "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Forget leaving the toilet seat up. What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair? And if she is annoyed by it, then she should get over it, because you aren't hurting anyone.
It's not about my potential spouse's rights. It's about the promise I would have made to be faithful. I have made no such promise to any hypothetical deity. And I would never form a relationship with someone who would desire me to kill someone, want to kill someone themselves, or want to kill and/or torture me for not obeying them.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assume that science proves that there is a God and that that God proves Himself to you in a number of ways.
Armoth, if we weren't talking about God -- if we were talking about, say, superpowerful alien overlords who as it turns out bred humans to be a slave race, but left us alone here for a few hundred thousand years to ripen as a species before returning to collect us -- would you assert that we owe them a debt?
I submit that a created being -- who at no point consented to that creation -- owes nothing to its creator: that the act of creating is meant to please the creator, not the creation, and is therefore a selfish act which fulfills a desire of the creator. The created, prior to existence, have no desires to be fulfilled by their creation.
This is not to say that the worship of a God is necessarily wrong or pointless. Rather, I'm saying that worshipping someone because He created you is silly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond, try "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalists" by Bishop John Shelby Spong. At the time, it was the best history of how the Bible was written and collected, written by someone who still sincerely believed in God and His glory, if not biblical inerrancy.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I submit that a created being -- who at no point consented to that creation -- owes nothing to its creator: that the act of creating is meant to please the creator, not the creation, and is therefore a selfish act which fulfills a desire of the creator.
Do you feel this way about parent/child relationships?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't actually think Tom's statement necessarily holds. Creating is not an inherently debt-inducing act. It depends on how much effort it was to create and what their intent was. Certainly creating will usually be at least somewhat selfish (insofar as the creator wants to have a creation), but it's entirely possible to have a creator who truly believed creating sentient beings was good for the beings themselves and wanted the best for them.
But whether or not a creation "owes" their creator anything depends entirely on how much effort creator put into maintaining the creation's wellbeing.
I think children owe their parents not for life itself, but for all the effort the parents subsequently put into raising, feeding, sheltering and teaching the child. (I'd say the effort/stress of the pregnancy itself certainly counts here, although how much it counts depends on the motivations or lack thereof of the pregnancy and things like whether the mother took care of herself during it).
Parents do sometimes need to punish their kids. And during the early childhood, the kid will not necessarily understand why. During this period, I don't think the kids inherently have an OBLIGATION to accept the punishment, because they are lack the abstract reasoning necessary to understand it.
As the kids' ability to understand increases, the parent has an obligation to explain better. The child's obligation to try and understand and live by their parents' rules depends on the effort a parent makes to create fair rules and explain them properly.
If a religion claims that the last time God openly communicated with humanity was thousands of years ago, when the collective human reasoning was infantile compared to what it is today, that says to me that God is basically a bad parent.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But whether or not a creation "owes" their creator anything depends entirely on how much effort creator put into maintaining the creation's wellbeing.
I agree with this. I think even beyond the relationships we have with our parents, there is some level of expected gratitude. For example, I think that gratitude is earned by mothers that carry a child to term in a healthy manner and then give their child up for adoption.
If a God did exist, I'm not opposed to the idea that some level of gratitude might be appropriate. I don't think that that gratitude extends to subservience or worship though.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
No. Just no. Frankly, I was put off by the way you were talking down to him and I agreed with all the points you were making. Honestly there is no excuse for you to communicate the way you have in this thread.
I can at least understand your logic when you call people delusional or ignorant or whatever. At least that's factually accurate from your perspective (and often, from mine as well). And I get that you feel society shouldn't tolerate ridiculous arguments or feel obligated to respect them for the sake of argument. (In some ways I think you're right, but in a very complicated way that I don't think you fully appreciate)
But the "ding!s" and the "finaly!s" are not necessary for that. They serve NO purpose other than to belittle the other participant. Anyone other than Armoth problem would have given up on the conversation (at least as a serious attempt at discourse).
Gotta second this. Armoth, major respect for standing up to this.
The atheists are making some good points, though. I don't really feel the need to join in; much of what I'd want to say is already being said.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assume that science proves that there is a God and that that God proves Himself to you in a number of ways.
Armoth, if we weren't talking about God -- if we were talking about, say, superpowerful alien overlords who as it turns out bred humans to be a slave race, but left us alone here for a few hundred thousand years to ripen as a species before returning to collect us -- would you assert that we owe them a debt?
I submit that a created being -- who at no point consented to that creation -- owes nothing to its creator: that the act of creating is meant to please the creator, not the creation, and is therefore a selfish act which fulfills a desire of the creator. The created, prior to existence, have no desires to be fulfilled by their creation.
This is not to say that the worship of a God is necessarily wrong or pointless. Rather, I'm saying that worshipping someone because He created you is silly.
Here's the thing: With God, I believe that everything He does is for our benefit. The limitations, the struggles - I'm a very big fan of the Worthing Saga for this reason - because it is so essential in explaining that light shines only in the darkest of places. That the evil that happens is actually a form of good, especially assuming an afterlife. Classic Jewish sources refer to this world as a "corridor" into the eternal world to come.
I believe we owe the aliens a debt of gratitude commensurate to our desire to live under the conditions they place us in.
Say for instance, the aliens had a conversation with us before creating us:
Aliens: Armoth, we shall only create you if you serve us butler for us. Armoth: Will I enjoy serving as butler? Or will I be in pain? Aliens: You probably won't enjoy serving as butlers, but you're off on the weekends, and you'll have a good time. Armoth: Okay, great. I'm down.
Would it be immoral for me to break that agreement? They don't HAVE to create me. They created me under certain conditions.
With God, it is even more interesting because He argues He is creating us for our own sakes every bit as much as He is creating us for His sake. Plugged into the worthing saga model - the stuggles are meant to produce the nobility and sacrifice that comes along with obedience to He who deserves obedience, etc.
The idea is - once you are created, you are biased, and you think about it like - hey, I'm autonomous - limiting me is oppressive. But I think it's totally moral to uphold that bargain.
---------------
"But hey!" "Armoth!" "We never made such a bargain!"
There is a concept in Jewish law of "acquiring or meriting something on behalf of someone when they are not there" - loosely - when something is objectively beneficial, you should assume that the person agrees to it. You don't need their specific assent. (complicated as to when this applies, etc.)
However, that's why I say you don't need to explicitly agree - that's not the point. As long as you would prefer to exist and benefit, and it can be assumed that you would, then the limitations placed upon you by your creator are moral. I argue that you have a moral responsibility to carry out those obligations.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
With the discussion having devolved to Armoth defending his beliefs to everyone, I wanted to go back and say that I agree with his original post.
That's not to say I am giving Armoth's beliefs a pass, I think they are scary and problematic in their own way. I just also think his criticism for this kind of "pick and choose" religious thought is also spot on.
It is not that simple. There are methods to the "picking and choosing" it is a whole field of study. The Bible is not all one seamless book; it is a collection of sacred writings spanning centuries. One has to take into account who was doing the writing, what the audience was, what the context was, what literary conventions were common, what the purpose was in writing whatever it was (rules, letters, poems, stories) and many other factors. Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
Once you abandon it word for word, why believe in it at all? What is your source for its truth? We've already argued how compelling the mass revelation is, and the argument everyone brings to undermine it is the evolution of the Bible. I, Lisa, others dispute this - but if you concede to the Bible's evolution, what is your source for its veracity? Perhaps it was merely an evolution of myths mixed with good morals.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: If a religion claims that the last time God openly communicated with humanity was thousands of years ago, when the collective human reasoning was infantile compared to what it is today, that says to me that God is basically a bad parent.
Or perhaps, our expectations/obligations are not as high.
(Again, I have never stoned anyone for homosexuality or adultery, nor do I feel the desire to. Indeed I have very much love for the homosexuals and adulterers in my life).
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've already argued how compelling the mass revelation is, and the argument everyone brings to undermine it is the evolution of the Bible.
Uh, no. That's far from the most relevant argument that was made about the claim of the mass revelation as evidence.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a very big fan of the Worthing Saga for this reason - because it is so essential in explaining that light shines only in the darkest of places.
Incidentally, The Worthing Saga strikes me as an excellent example of the dangers of asserting myth as truth; it is an allegory that seeks to justify a certain point of view, but contains nothing that can be called "truth" with any certainty.
It is a myth written with a goal. In the same way, I am unsurprised that Jewish tradition, over thousands of years, has come up with a "law" that explains why you'd owe something to your hypothetical God. That does not, however, give me a reason to regard that law as sensible or valid.
quote:We've already argued how compelling the mass revelation is, and the argument everyone brings to undermine it is the evolution of the Bible.
For the record, that was merely one of seven arguments I brought to undermine that "compelling" revelation.
quote:Again, I have never stoned anyone for homosexuality or adultery, nor do I feel the desire to.
But your desires are irrelevant in this hypothetical, as God has told you that this person should be stoned and, after all, you owe Him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, I believe that as long as I have a desire to live, and I enjoy life, that certain commandments that curb my autonomy for the sake of gratitude to the creator are indeed moral
Ok, that's fine if you are willing to curb your own autonomy out of gratitude towards your god, but what about when god's commands require you to curb the autonomy of someone else? You already know that this god is able to know who the sinners are and who deserves to be put to death. And you know that he can carry out his own justice/punishment quickly, efficiently, and perfectly, as he has often done in the past. So is it really fair of him to expect flawed humanity to try to imperfectly interpret his will and punishments, and then to carry them out for him, especially on matters that require killing someone in a most painful manner?
You've stated that you wouldn't stone someone to death, but why would god ever expect anyone to put someone to death in his name? Shouldn't matters involving life and death be between god and the individual and his own scale of gratitude and perceived benefits rather than involving some third party that isn't going to understand the whole situation? The whole process seems so flawed and inefficient, not something I would expect from a perfect, benevolent god.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I don't think there's anything irrational about trusting a source that's often correct but sometimes imperfect. I trust things I read on Wikipedia, for instance, despite the fact that I am certain that it is sometimes wrong. Is it irrational of me to do so?
Incidently, nobody here has suggested "picking the parts of the Bible you like." If someone translated part of the Bible to suggest that Chipotle is what God said we should eat at Communion, I'd certainly like to follow such a rule, but I wouldn't accept it as the truth because it definitely seems false.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion and the Bible are two different things. The line of reasoning being that if every word of the Bible wasn't dictated by God then there's room for human interpreation and thus human error. As the Bible is a collection of stories about interactions between us and God (rather than just a long monologue from God) this beleive isn't exactly coming out of left field. People have these experiences, being either personal, one-on-one type events or with vast groups, they remember them and then write them down. Because they're are best description of how God interacts with us they're invaluable and the basis for understanding but because they're the stories as recorded by people they are not error free.
Not the only way to look at it but there's definitely plenty of middle ground between 'The Bible is word-for-word perfect' and 'The whole thing's a fraud', which I believe the idea being addressed.
quote:In what way is your religion "often correct"?
In that most things it has taught me have turned out to be true, particularly the things most emphasized.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If you are really interested in this, there are a couple of books I could recommend. For some of the "big ticket" issues like slavery and homosexuality, I would suggest reading "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes.
