Answer to Theodicy: Soteriological Drama
The Free Will Defense is offered by Christian apologists as an answer to any sort of atheist argument such as the problem of pain or the problem of evil. The argument runs something like: God values free will because "he" ("she"?) doesn't want robots. The problem with this approach is that it often stops short in analysis as to why free will would be a higher value than anything else. This leaves the atheist in a position of arguing any number of pains and evil deeds and then crying that God had to know these things would happen, thus God must be cruel for creating anything at all knowing the total absolute pain (which usually includes hell in most atheist arguments) would result from creation.
The apologists answers usually fail to satisfy the atheist, because in their minds noting can outweigh the actual inflicting of pain. Something atheists evoke omnipotence and play it off against the value of free will, making the assumption that an "all powerful God" could do anything, thus God should be able to cancel any sort of moral debt, make sin beyond our natures, create a pain free universe, and surely if God were all loving, God would have done so.
The better twist on the free will defense would be to start from a different position. We should start with the basis for creation, in so far as we can understand it, and then to show how the logical and non self contradictory requirements of the logic of creation require free will. What is usually missing or not pointed out is the necessity of free will in the making of moral choices. This is the step that atheists and Christian apologists alike sometimes overlook; that it is absolutely essential in a non-self contradictory way, that humanity have free will. Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God's omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!
Before moving to the argument I want to make it clear that I deal with two separate issues: the problem of pain (not a moral issue--tornadoes and diseases and the like) becasue it doesn't involve human choice. Pain, inflicted by accident and nature is not a moral issue, because it involves no choices. Thus I will not deal with that here. I am only concerned in this argument with the the problem of evil that is, the problem of moral choice. The free will defense cannot apply to makes where the will does not apply.
Basic assumptions
There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.
(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.
The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.
(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.
That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.
(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.
The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.
The argument would look like this:
(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.
(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).
(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices
(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.
This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.
This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:
(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.
(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us
(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.
(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.
In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.
This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.
Objection:
One might object that this couldn't outweigh babies dying or the horrors of war or the all the countless injustices and outrages that must be allowed and that permeate human history. It may seem at first glance that free will is petty compared to human suffering. But I am advocating free will for the sake any sort of pleasure or imagined moral victory that accrues from having free will, it's a totally pragmatic issue; that internalizing the value of the good requires that one choose to do so, and free will is essential if choice is required. Thus it is not a capricious or selfish defense of free will, not a matter of choosing our advantage or our pleasure over that of dying babies, but of choosing the key to saving the babies in the long run,and to understanding why we want to save them, and to care about saving them, and to actually choosing their saving over our own good.
In deciding what values outweigh other values we have to be clear about our decision making paradigm. From a utilitarian standpoint the determinate of lexically ordered values would be utility, what is the greatest good for the greatest number? This would be determined by means of outcome, what is the final tally sheet in terms of pleasure over pain to the greatest aggregate? But why that be the value system we decide by? It's just one value system and much has been written about the bankruptcy of consequentialist ethics. If one uses a deontological standard it might be a different thing to consider the lexically ordered values. Free will predominates because it allows internalization of the good. The good is the key to any moral value system. This could be justified on both deontolgoical and teleological premises.
My own moral decision making paradigm is deontological, because I believe that teleological ethics reduces morality to the decision making of a ledger sheet and forces the individual to do immoral things in the name of "the greatest good for the greatest number." I find most atheists are utilitarians so this will make no sense to them. They can't help but think of the greatest good/greatest number as the ultaimte adage, and deontology as empty duty with no logic to it. But that is not the case. Deontology is not just rule keeping, it is also duty oriented ethics. The duty that we must internalize is that ultimate duty that love demands of any action. Robots don't love. One must freely choose to give up self and make a selfless act in order to act from Love. Thus we cannot have a loved oriented ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.
The choice of free will at the expense of countless lives and untold suffering cannot be an easy thing, but it is essential and can be justified from either deontolgoical or teleological perspective. Although I think the deontologcial makes more sense. From the teleological stand point, free will ultimately leads to the greatest good for the greatest number because in the long run it assumes us that one is willing to die for the other, or sacrifice for the other, or live for the other. That is essential to promoting a good beyond ourselves. The individual sacrifices for the good of the whole, very utilitarian. It is also deontolgocially justifiable since duty would tell us that we must give of ourselves for the good of the other.
Thus anyway you slice it free will outweighs all other concerns because it makes available the values of the good and of love. Free will is the key to ultimately saving the babies, and saving them because we care about them, a triumph of the heart, not just action from wrote. It's internalization of a value system without which other and greater injustices could be foisted upon an unsuspecting humanity that has not been tought to choose to lay down one's own life for the other.
Objection 2: questions
(from "UCOA" On CARM boards (atheism)
Quote:
In addition, there is no explanation of why god randomly decided to make a "moral universe".
Why do you describe the decision as random? Of course all of this is second guessing God, so the real answer is "I don't know, duh" But far be it form me to give-up without an opinion. My opinion as to why God would create moral universe:
to understand this you must understand my view of God, and that will take some doing. I'll try to just put it in a nut shell. In my view love is the background of the moral universe. The essence of "the good" or of what is moral is that which conforms to "lug." But love in the apogee sense, the will to the good of the other. I do not believe that that this is just derived arbitrarily, but is the outpouring of the wellspring of God's character. God is love, thus love is the background of the moral universe because God is the background of the moral universe.
Now I also describe God as "being itself." Meaning God is the foundation of all that is. I see a connection between love and being. Both are positive and giving and turning on in the face of nothingness, which is negativity. To say that another way, if we think of nothingness as a big drain pipe, it is threatening to **** all that exits into it. Being is the power to resist nothingness, being the stopper in the great cosmic drain pipe of non existence.
The act of bestowing being upon the beings is the nature of God because God is being. Those the two things God does because that's what he is, he "BES" (um, exists) and he gives out being bestowing it upon other beings. This is connected to love which also gives out and bestows. So being and love are connected, thus the moral universe is an outgrowth of the nature of God as giving and bestowing and being and loving.
Quote:
Thus the question isn't really answered. Why does god allow/create evil? To create a "moral universe". Why? The only answer that is given is, because he wants to. Putting it together, Why does god allow/create evil? Because he wants to?
In a nut shell, God allows evil as an inherent risk in allowing moral agency. (the reason for which is given above).
There is a big difference in doing something and allowing it to be done. God does not create evil, he allows the risk of evil to be run by the beings, because that risk is required to have free moral agency. The answer is not "because he wants to" the answer is because he wants free moral agency so that free moral agents will internatize the values of love. To have free moral agency he must allow them to:
(1)run the risk of evil choices
(2) live in a real world where hurt is part of the dice throw.
objection 3:
Originally Posted by Darth Pringle
Short response.
It can never be the case that an eternal being must allow evil because it is never the case that an eternal being must create anything.
Yes it obviously is. This is anther one of my "caaaAAAAAAaaasy" Idea tha NOOOOOOO body would eVVER consider!'
(1) If God is real, then God created the world (why he's called "God")
(2) If God is real and created the world we can assume that God is good an axiom of belief and as an empirical conclusion drawn postorori from the sense of the numinous.
(3) If God created the universe we assume he's smart.
(3) if God created the world (and he's smart) and if God is good, then he must have created the world with a calculation of good vs. evil in mind.
(4) Given what's been said above if we assume God is real we just assume he knows best based upon the calculation and had tabulated the results and found that creation is worth it.
see my answers to atheist attacks on this idea in my essay: "Twelve Angry Stereotypes"
page 2 (Pain and Short Lives)
Comments
What a load of tosh!
Of course there is moral choice. God (if he exists) chose to inflict diseases on mankind. How can you possibly think that that was not a moral issue?
God chooses not to prevent every earthquake, every famine, every drought. How is refusing to prevent suffering not a moral issue?
What we see here is a gallant attempt to frame the issue in a very specific manner to hide the obvious flaws. That might fool some, but is hardly going to convince the skeptics.
(1) Questioning the goodness of the source of all goodness, I wonder who thought of that!??
(2) Defining moral good according how much pain is dealt is not valid.That is nit moral. it;sa different issue. Question you right to question God as the source and judge of the good. By that reasoning getting your tooth pulled is the great evil.
(3) I was saying not that those issues such as the justice of suffering don't invoke any moralizing but that none of those issues innovate pain as a consequence of guilt. The level of pain you feel in life is not a consequence of our own personal wrong doing.
We are debating the existence of God, what you consider the source of all goodness. So questioning the goodness of the source of all goodness is pretty much what we do.
Joe: (2) Defining moral good according how much pain is dealt is not valid.That is nit moral. it;sa different issue. Question you right to question God as the source and judge of the good. By that reasoning getting your tooth pulled is the great evil.
So how are you defining moral?
This looks like just another trick. You want to define what is moral in such a way that God necessarily looks like he is good. I am not buying it. Causing needless suffering is wrong. God choose to inflict diseases on mankind, that was a moral choice, and it was morally wrong.
Joe: (3) I was saying not that those issues such as the justice of suffering don't invoke any moralizing but that none of those issues innovate pain as a consequence of guilt. The level of pain you feel in life is not a consequence of our own personal wrong doing.
Not sure what that even means. Are you saying we only feel pain as a consequence of guilt? Or you are only consider that? Why?
Pix
Joe: (1) Questioning the goodness of the source of all goodness, I wonder who thought of that!??
We are debating the existence of God, what you consider the source of all goodness. So questioning the goodness of the source of all goodness is pretty much what we do.
questioning the existence of the source of good and questioning the goodness of good are two different things. Sure maybe there is no God but there has to be a good. to quesiob the goodness of the spruce of good is to say there is no good.
Joe: (2) Defining moral good according how much pain is dealt is not valid.That is not moral. it;s a different issue. Question you right to question God as the source and judge of the good. By that reasoning getting your tooth pulled is the great evil.
So how are you defining moral?
you are doing teleological ethics which most ethecists abhor, I am doing deontological ethics which most ethecists endorse. deontological ethics = duty and obligation.
PixThis looks like just another trick. You want to define what is moral in such a way that God necessarily looks like he is good.
Yes God must be good by definition because that's what God is. That's like saying you're just defining chemistry as using chemicals. maybe it's not maybe it's spelling cheese. But you are arbitrarily saying that chemistry is about chemicals,God doesn't exist by definition but he is good by definition.
Pix I am not buying it. Causing needless suffering is wrong. God choose to inflict diseases on mankind, that was a moral choice, and it was morally wrong.
Yes God did not do that. That's my whole point by saying suffering is not a moral choice. God did not force people to suffer arbitrarily it is the rest of physical reasons not moral ones.
Joe: (3) I was saying not that those issues such as the justice of suffering don't invoke any moralizing but that none of those issues involve pain as a consequence of guilt. The level of pain you feel in life is not a consequence of our own personal wrong doing.
Not sure what that even means. Are you saying we only feel pain as a consequence of guilt? Or you are only consider that? Why?
Do you not read English? is this your second language? read this:
none of those issues involve pain as a consequence of guilt.
If Pain is not a consequence of Guilt then am I saying "we only feel pain as a consequence of guilt?" How could that possibly follow? do you know the word "not?"
I took you to mean God as the source of goodness. If we recognise thatpeople do good actions, then people are a (or the?) source of goodness.
Joe: you are doing teleological ethics which most ethecists abhor, I am doing deontological ethics which most ethecists endorse. deontological ethics = duty and obligation.
Does God have a duty or obligation to prevent suffering? If not, does God have any duty or obligation? If not, how can we consider God moral?
Joe: Yes God must be good by definition because that's what God is....
You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about how we define what is good. Oddly, so were you ("Defining moral good according ...") so you have also misunderstood what YU were saying.
Joe: Yes God did not do that. That's my whole point by saying suffering is not a moral choice. God did not force people to suffer arbitrarily it is the rest of physical reasons not moral ones.
Okay. Most Christians consider God to be the creator, and that the universe - and by implication it contents - exist only because of God.
Joe: Do you not read English? is this your second language? read this:
none of those issues involve pain as a consequence of guilt.
Okay, I understand that sentence, but do not see how it is relevant.
Joe: If Pain is not a consequence of Guilt then am I saying "we only feel pain as a consequence of guilt?" How could that possibly follow? do you know the word "not?"
So I think you are saying pain is not a consequence of guilt, but so what? Who says it is? Again, I think the root of the issue is you did not understand me.
Pix
Joe: questioning the existence of the source of good and questioning the goodness of good are two different things. Sure maybe there is no God but there has to be a good. to quesiob the goodness of the spruce of good is to say there is no good.
I took you to mean God as the source of goodness. If we recognise thatpeople do good actions, then people are a (or the?) source of goodness.
No that does not make people the source of good. Baht spends upon the nature of the good, People don't do good of their own accord. The Good is more exculpated than just a relative behavior,
Joe: you are doing teleological ethics which most ethecists abhor, I am doing deontological ethics which most ethecists endorse. deontological ethics = duty and obligation.
Does God have a duty or obligation to prevent suffering? If not, does God have any duty or obligation? If not, how can we consider God moral?
God is not judged, He is beyond our understanding. Obviously we are not fit to judge him. God is the source of the good.
Joe: Yes God must be good by definition because that's what God is....
You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about how we define what is good. Oddly, so were you ("Defining moral good according ...") so you have also misunderstood what YU were saying.
what total BS. Obviously we are dealing iwth two different senses, deontology and meta ethical theory.
Joe: Yes God did not do that. That's my whole point by saying suffering is not a moral choice. God did not force people to suffer arbitrarily it is the rest of physical reasons not moral ones.
Okay. Most Christians consider God to be the creator, and that the universe - and by implication it contents - exist only because of God.
You have no idea what we are discussing. yes of course I Blevins that. How does it change what;s been said?
Joe: Do you not read English? is this your second language? read this:
none of those issues involve pain as a consequence of guilt.
Okay, I understand that sentence, but do not see how it is relevant.
hat I said way back at the top pain is not a moral issue.
Joe: If Pain is not a consequence of Guilt then am I saying "we only feel pain as a consequence of guilt?" How could that possibly follow? do you know the word "not?"
So I think you are saying pain is not a consequence of guilt, but so what? Who says it is? Again, I think the root of the issue is you did not understand me.
Until you read this senescence you thought I said it, you thought christians say it.
you said:"What a load of tosh!
Of course there is moral choice. God (if he exists) chose to inflict diseases on mankind. How can you possibly think that that was not a moral issue?"
that's how we got here
Perhaps you should explain exactly what "source of good" means, and indeed exactly what "good" means in that context. You seem to consider it to be comparable to a substance; something that is manufactured by someone or something (God in this case), and is then distributed by others (people performing morally good acts). I appreciate fantasy literature often views evil in a similar way, but I assuredly do not.
Joe: God is not judged, He is beyond our understanding. Obviously we are not fit to judge him. God is the source of the good.
God is judged; I have judged him myself. Anyone can do it.
Perhaps what you meant is that we should not judge God, which is quite different. Prohibiting judging the morality of an individual is, to me, tantamount to admitting he would fail the judgement.
If God was perfectly good, it would be clear he was good when we judge him.
Joe: what total BS. Obviously we are dealing iwth two different senses, deontology and meta ethical theory.
And yet when I asked about God's duties and obligations, you ducked the issue, saying we are not allowed to even ask!
It is clear that this is an exercise in making excuses for God. We are not allowed to discuss the suffering God allows because that is "teleological ethics which most ethecists abhor", and we are not allowed to discuss God's duties and obligations because "Obviously we are not fit to judge him"
Joe: You have no idea what we are discussing. yes of course I Blevins that. How does it change what;s been said?
Then God created - indirectly perhaps - disease.
Joe: hat I said way back at the top pain is not a moral issue.
Pain itself is not, but inflicting it surely is. Or do you see nothing immoral about torture?
Joe: that's how we got here
I know how it started. I pointed out God created disease, which you seem to have subsequently admitted, and by doing so God has caused a huge amount of suffering, which I would consider morally wrong, even if you do not.
Pix
Joe: No that does not make people the source of good. Baht spends upon the nature of the good, People don't do good of their own accord. The Good is more exculpated than just a relative behavior,
Perhaps you should explain exactly what "source of good" means, and indeed exactly what "good" means in that context. You seem to consider it to be comparable to a substance; something that is manufactured by someone or something (God in this case), and is then distributed by others (people performing morally good acts). I appreciate fantasy literature often views evil in a similar way, but I assuredly do not.
speaking of the good in the abstract might make it sound like a substance of course that is not the case.Apparently you are not well read in moral philosophy.
the Good = that which is right, that which should be done.
Source of the good = the basis upon which it is determined what is right or should be done,
God is judged; I have judged him myself. Anyone can do it.
You just remember that as you burn in hell. You have judged nothing, but you just proved your rejection of God is ego. you refuse to be told what to do even by the king of the universe.
Perhaps what you meant is that we should not judge God, which is quite different. Prohibiting judging the morality of an individual is, to me, tantamount to admitting he would fail the judgement.
We are not callable of judging God our judgements mean noting at all
If God was perfectly good, it would be clear he was good when we judge him.
the only basis you would have for understanding that is your limited narrow preservative which is nothing compared to God's. The gnat who buzzes in your nose hairs thinks you are very hairy,do you care?
Joe: what total BS. Obviously we are dealing iwth two different senses, deontology and meta ethical theory.
And yet when I asked about God's duties and obligations, you ducked the issue, saying we are not allowed to even ask!
How dare you even suggest the Master of the universe should have a duty? who the hell are you to say any such thing?
It is clear that this is an exercise in making excuses for God. We are not allowed to discuss the suffering God allows because that is "teleological ethics which most ethecists abhor", and we are not allowed to discuss God's duties and obligations because "Obviously we are not fit to judge him"
God is the basis of the good, there can be obligation but that God set it so it;s impossible for God to be obligated. God is sovereign,he is the king,
Joe: You have no idea what we are discussing. yes of course I Blevins that. How does it change what;s been said?
Then God created - indirectly perhaps - disease.
no
Joe: hat I said way back at the top pain is not a moral issue.
Pain itself is not, but inflicting it surely is. Or do you see nothing immoral about torture?
God is God you are not, You may not but God can.That does not give us permission to do so because we can never be God.Moreover God is not inflicting pain. He created a physical universe in which pain is possible that does not make him the ifnlictor of pain.
Joe: that's how we got here
I know how it started. I pointed out God created disease, which you seem to have subsequently admitted, and by doing so God has caused a huge amount of suffering, which I would consider morally wrong, even if you do not.
God did not create disease. He created biology.
Ray said "now he's going to go argue with his friends about my existence."
Our ability to judge God is not even as acute as the Fly's ability to judge Ray. But God would be well within his rights to be as indifferent as Ray was toward the fly but he's not.I know this because Jesus said it.For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
Perhaps you should have made that clear from the start?
I would say mankind is the source of good. When presented with a moral question, you decide the answer yourself (or perhaps ask another person).
In what sense is God the source? How does God communicate with you what is right or wrong?
Joe: You just remember that as you burn in hell. You have judged nothing, but you just proved your rejection of God is ego. you refuse to be told what to do even by the king of the universe.
How can YOU decide God is good without judging him? Is this something you take on faith?
I do not share that faith. If you want me to think God is good you need to show that, and then I need to judge whether that is the case.
I consider God torturing people in hell to be morally wrong (but perhaps you do not think God does that). I consider God allowing kids to die of cancer when he could easily prevent it to be morally wrong. I consider God's position on slavery to be morally wrong.
I may be wrong in my judgments, but very clearly I am judging God. And no Christian seems able to point out why my judgments are wrong, all they can say is that I should not be allowed to judge, just as you do here.
Joe: We are not callable of judging God our judgements mean noting at all
They mean something to us. And to us, that is what is important.
Joe: the only basis you would have for understanding that is your limited narrow preservative which is nothing compared to God's. The gnat who buzzes in your nose hairs thinks you are very hairy,do you care?
The gnat cares. And that is what is important to the gnat.
Joe: How dare you even suggest the Master of the universe should have a duty? who the hell are you to say any such thing?
Your view of morality is foundered on duty, and yet now you admit God has no duties. The implication - which I am sure you will reject - is that God is amoral.
Joe: God is the basis of the good, there can be obligation but that God set it so it;s impossible for God to be obligated. God is sovereign,he is the king,
How can a being be moral under deontological ethics if he has no obligations?
Tell me, Joe, you are the one who advocates deontological ethics. Talk us through it. Does a jellyfish or a lion or cornovirus have obligations? No. So how are they different to God under a system of ethics that revolves around obligations?
Joe: God is God you are not, You may not but God can.That does not give us permission to do so because we can never be God.Moreover God is not inflicting pain. He created a physical universe in which pain is possible that does not make him the ifnlictor of pain.
Interesting opinion.
Joe: God did not create disease. He created biology.
Therefore he indirectly caused diseases. Did he not know that that would happen? Was he powerless to stop diseases when they appeared?
Curious how much your god behaves like no god.
Pix
Joe: Source of the good = the basis upon which it is determined what is right or should be done,
Perhaps you should have made that clear from the start?
Pretty standard, I didn't think you were culturally illiterate.
I would say mankind is the source of good. When presented with a moral question, you decide the answer yourself (or perhaps ask another person).
Really? suppose I want to kill you to see the color of your blood am I wrong? From your perspective but not mine. you want to appeal to a higher standard such as fairness? then humans are not the source of the good.What made Hitler wrong? If humans are the source of the good then Hitler must have have been ok.
In what sense is God the source?
He created all things
How does God communicate with you what is right or wrong?
The Bible, living prophets,law on the heart
Joe: You just remember that as you burn in hell. You have judged nothing, but you just proved your rejection of God is ego. you refuse to be told what to do even by the king of the universe.
How can YOU decide God is good without judging him? Is this something you take on faith?
That's a fair question I think the answer will involve shades of gray abouit the term:"Judge." Recognizing God's goodness is not judgement,except in the loosest sense of the term
I do not share that faith. If you want me to think God is good you need to show that, and then I need to judge whether that is the case.
We don't need to grapple with that to understand that the conceit of God involves source of the good as definition.
I consider God torturing people in hell to be morally wrong (but perhaps you do not think God does that).
check
I consider God allowing kids to die of cancer when he could easily prevent it to be morally wrong. I consider God's position on slavery to be morally wrong.
what would easily prevent involve? have you thought about the implication? what would that mean for human autonomy? What would it mean for moral responsibility if there were no consequences?
I may be wrong in my judgments, but very clearly I am judging God. And no Christian seems able to point out why my judgments are wrong, all they can say is that I should not be allowed to judge, just as you do here.
I think I just did
cancer is not a consequence of moral judgement but it is one of living in a real world under physical laws. which means what we gain in autonomy we lose in the risk of falling prey to the natural world.
Joe: We are not callable of judging God our judgements mean noting at all
They mean something to us. And to us, that is what is important.
No they don't a child pretending he knows better than adults and convinces himself he's really right,
Joe: the only basis you would have for understanding that is your limited narrow preservative which is nothing compared to God's. The gnat who buzzes in your nose hairs thinks you are very hairy,do you care?
The gnat cares. And that is what is important to the gnat.
so?
Your view of morality is foundered on duty, and yet now you admit God has no duties. The implication - which I am sure you will reject - is that God is amoral.
God is the good. He is both standard and judge.He is not judged, he is beyond our ability to understand therefore we have no basis for judging God. Tod makes the rules we obey the rules.
Joe: God is the basis of the good, there can be obligation but that God set it so it;s impossible for God to be obligated. God is sovereign,he is the king,
How can a being be moral under deontological ethics if he has no obligations?
how can the parent spank the child and not himself be subject to being spanked? but the parent is not subject to the child. God us off scale.hes not moral he not immoral he is transmoral. but the essence of the good.
If God is the standard there is no question but that he meets it himself he is it.
Tell me, Joe, you are the one who advocates deontological ethics. Talk us through it. Does a jellyfish or a lion or cornovirus have obligations? No. So how are they different to God under a system of ethics that revolves around obligations?
Please take a course in moral philosophy. I was assuming you had some basic knowledge i guess society is so a moral now people don't know this stuff now. Jellyfish is not the standard of the good. God is the standard of the good.
Joe: God is God you are not, You may not but God can.That does not give us permission to do so because we can never be God.Moreover God is not inflicting pain. He created a physical universe in which pain is possible that does not make him the ifnlictor of pain.
Interesting opinion.
Joe: God did not create disease. He created biology.
Therefore he indirectly caused diseases. Did he not know that that would happen? Was he powerless to stop diseases when they appeared?
wouldn't you still want autonomy?
Curious how much your god behaves like no god.
the price of autonomy, if you believe a whole new world opens up where God can reach you.
Joe: Really? suppose I want to kill you to see the color of your blood am I wrong? From your perspective but not mine. you want to appeal to a higher standard such as fairness? then humans are not the source of the good.What made Hitler wrong? If humans are the source of the good then Hitler must have have been ok.
A few hundred years ago, if I wanted to buy a slave, it was perfectly legal, and considered morally acceptable. Now it is not.
What has changed?
God? No. God is supposedly eternal. The Bible even today says chattel slavery is fine for gentile slaves.
What has changed is mankind. We have evolved a better morality. We are better at making moral decisions.
Pix: In what sense is God the source?
Joe: He created all things
So you consider good to be analogous to a substance now, i.e., a member of the set of "things" God created, just one post after scoff at me for supposing such a thing. It is interesting how quickly you flipflop on these things.
Joe: He created all things
And yet last post you told me he did not create diseases.
Again, I must point out how you flipflop as the mood suits you. Perhaps if you had these things straight in your mind, your arguments would be more coherent.
Joe: The Bible, living prophets,law on the heart
The living prophets and the law on the heart are both mankind. Both are man saying what is right and what is wrong.
As for the Bible, I would say that that too is from man. Do you really think chattel slavery is acceptable for gentile slaves? Of course not! You disagree with the morality of the Bible where it suits you.
So how can you pretend to get your morality from there?
Joe: The Bible, living prophets,law on the heart
Are all Christians agreed on moral issues? Of course not! Issues like homosexuality and abortion are hotly debated. How can that be if Christians get their moral position from God?
Joe: That's a fair question I think the answer will involve shades of gray abouit the term:"Judge." Recognizing God's goodness is not judgement,except in the loosest sense of the term
How can we determine whether or not God is good without judging him in the clear and usual meaning of the word?
You can either blindly accept an individual is good, or you can look at the evidence and make a judgment.
Joe: We don't need to grapple with that to understand that the conceit of God involves source of the good as definition.
In your definition perhaps. Zeus and Apollo are not considered the source of good. If you want to define God in that way, then it is incumbent on you to show that a god who is the source of good exists, rather than just any god. All your posts on mystical experiences and miracles are not going to cut; at best all they can show is there is some force or power; they cannot show that that force or power is the source of good, so cannot show God exists, as per your definition.
Joe: what would easily prevent involve? ...
Performing a tiny miracle each time a kid gets cancer to cure it before anyone knows anything about it. Trivial for an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
Pix
You think kids getting cancer is good for human autonomy? You think it helps moral responsibility? Talk me through that Joe, because I really do not see it.
Of course, if you are right, then we should be actively giving kids cancer because, apparently, that is beneficial. But of course, you will refuse to see the implication of your position because it is so clearly wrong.
Joe: cancer is not a consequence of moral judgement but it is one of living in a real world under physical laws. which means what we gain in autonomy we lose in the risk of falling prey to the natural world.
I look forward to explaining why curing kids of cancer is bad for our autonomy.
Joe: No they don't a child pretending he knows better than adults and convinces himself he's really right,
Nevertheless, it is important to the child, or the gnat, or to whoever.
Maybe the child is right; it can happen. To extend the analogy, it is not like a parent is telling the child otherwise.
Joe: so?
So you are the gnat in the analogy. If something is important to you, is it important to you? Obviously it is.
Pix: Your view of morality is foundered on duty, and yet now you admit God has no duties. The implication - which I am sure you will reject - is that God is amoral.
Joe: God is the good. He is both standard and judge.He is not judged, he is beyond our ability to understand therefore we have no basis for judging God. Tod makes the rules we obey the rules.
How about you address the issue. Your morality is based only of duties and obligations. You admit God has no duties and obligations. Therefore he is amoral.
Pix: How can a being be moral under deontological ethics if he has no obligations?
Joe: how can the parent spank the child and not himself be subject to being spanked? but the parent is not subject to the child. God us off scale.hes not moral he not immoral he is transmoral. but the essence of the good.
You are stumped, aren't you? You have no way to answer this issue.
Under the scheme of morality you propose your God is amoral.
Joe: If God is the standard there is no question but that he meets it himself he is it.
If God is the standard, then when I see a person in trouble, I will be sure to ignore him.
If God is the standard, and god has no duties or obligations, then let me assure you that I fully live up to that standard under deontological ethics.
Joe: Please take a course in moral philosophy. I was assuming you had some basic knowledge i guess society is so a moral now people don't know this stuff now. Jellyfish is not the standard of the good. God is the standard of the good.
Jellyfish or God, it is just the same. The standard has no duties or obligations. Therefore, I am already living up to those duties and obligations.
Pix: Therefore he indirectly caused diseases. Did he not know that that would happen? Was he powerless to stop diseases when they appeared?
Joe: wouldn't you still want autonomy?
Do please explain how diseases increase autonomy. Do you think we should stop all research on curing diseases? Do you think that when science cures the last disease we will all be robots somehow?
I do not understand this sentiment. I have seen it in other Christians, and to be frank, I do not think they understand it either. I think it is something you have been taught to say, and so you trot it out like a trained parrot, with no idea what it means. But please, prove me wrong. Show how diseases give as autonomy.
My observation is that during this coronavirus crisis we have less autonomy.
Pix
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/11/evidence-that-demands-rewrite.html
Joe: ... have you thought about the implication? what would that mean for human autonomy? What would it mean for moral responsibility if there were no consequences?
You think kids getting cancer is good for human autonomy? You think it helps moral responsibility? Talk me through that Joe, because I really do not see it.
Not good for it but a consequence of it. We are subject to nature we have no recourse to God's healing the more autonomous we are.
Of course, if you are right, then we should be actively giving kids cancer because, apparently, that is beneficial. But of course, you will refuse to see the implication of your position because it is so clearly wrong.
That is not the implication of my position ,you are assuming said it's good I didn't, i merely said it's the way it is.
Joe: cancer is not a consequence of moral judgement but it is one of living in a real world under physical laws. which means what we gain in autonomy we lose in the risk of falling prey to the natural world.
I look forward to explaining why curing kids of cancer is bad for our autonomy.
It doesn't work in reverse being autonomous means we don't have access to miracles but that does not mean that if we say we are not autonomous we get miracles, the dye is cast. curing kids of cancer does not make us less autonomous.
Joe: No they don't a child pretending he knows better than adults and convinces himself he's really right,
Nevertheless, it is important to the child, or the gnat, or to whoever.
No those who see through that illusion know better,
Maybe the child is right; it can happen. To extend the analogy, it is not like a parent is telling the child otherwise.
trying to rationalize your alienation.
Joe: so?
So you are the gnat in the analogy. If something is important to you, is it important to you? Obviously it is.
Yes we are fellow gnats together
Pix: Your view of morality is foundered on duty, and yet now you admit God has no duties. The implication - which I am sure you will reject - is that God is amoral.
God does not have to subject himself to a moral standard because he is the standard! His character is the standard which creates the good.All he has to do is behimself.
Joe: God is the good. He is both standard and judge.He is not judged, he is beyond our ability to understand therefore we have no basis for judging God. God makes the rules we obey the rules.
How about you address the issue. Your morality is based only of duties and obligations. You admit God has no duties and obligations. Therefore he is amoral.
why can;t you understand this concept? God is not moral he is the basis of the moral, He is not a being he is being itself.
Pix: How can a being be moral under deontological ethics if he has no obligations?
God is not a being he is being itself.
Joe: how can the parent spank the child and not himself be subject to being spanked? but the parent is not subject to the child. God us off scale.hes not moral he not immoral he is transmoral. but the essence of the good.
You are stumped, aren't you? You have no way to answer this issue.
I just answered it. you are so intent on rebelling against God you can't understand the concepts you are intentionally trying to pretend you get it when in fact you have no idea.
Under the scheme of morality you propose your God is amoral.
How could God fail the stonkered when he's the standard? You might as well say speed is not fast.
If God is the standard, then when I see a person in trouble, I will be sure to ignore him.
God does not ignore us, everything we have God gives us you are a brill it guy because God gave you your brain. every break we get is from God. When people help those in trouble got put it in them to care.
If God is the standard, and god has no duties or obligations, then let me assure you that I fully live up to that standard under deontological ethics.
no you on;t. you are ignorant of the standard no one lives up to it.
Joe: Please take a course in moral philosophy. I was assuming you had some basic knowledge i guess society is so a moral now people don't know this stuff now. Jellyfish is not the standard of the good. God is the standard of the good.
Jellyfish or God, it is just the same. The standard has no duties or obligations. Therefore, I am already living up to those duties and obligations.
God is not a man he does not have to be forced to be good.since the good is based upon his character he is good He's just that way we have to work at it
Pix: Therefore he indirectly caused diseases. Did he not know that that would happen? Was he powerless to stop diseases when they appeared?
Joe: wouldn't you still want autonomy?
Do please explain how diseases increase autonomy. Do you think we should stop all research on curing diseases? Do you think that when science cures the last disease we will all be robots somehow?
get the wheels turning. think now,disease is a consequence of the natural world without God's direct intervention. If you have a natural world you are prey to nature,nature includes disease as part of evolution. How many times must I explain this?
You are being dense. It makes a good deal of sense you refuse to accept that because you fear the obvious implications
My observation is that during this coronavirus crisis we have less autonomy.
Of course! autonomy is self defeating, that's the big secret of belief this what believers intuitively realize, we have more freedom under God's commands.
Pix: I would say mankind is the source of good. When presented with a moral question, you decide the answer yourself (or perhaps ask another person).
Joe: Really? suppose I want to kill you to see the color of your blood am I wrong? From your perspective but not mine. you want to appeal to a higher standard such as fairness? then humans are not the source of the good.What made Hitler wrong? If humans are the source of the good then Hitler must have have been ok.
A few hundred years ago, if I wanted to buy a slave, it was perfectly legal, and considered morally acceptable. Now it is not.
What has changed?
Christ. WE have been moving progressively closer to the ideal and Jesus shows us the ideal in action in the character of a man,
God? No. God is supposedly eternal. The Bible even today says chattel slavery is fine for gentile slaves.
No it doesn't. Look at the abolitionists who actually fought slavery they justly did it because their faith led them too
What has changed is mankind. We have evolved a better morality. We are better at making moral decisions.
largely because of Christianity
Pix: In what sense is God the source?
Joe: He created all things
So you consider good to be analogous to a substance now, i.e., a member of the set of "things" God created, just one post after scoff at me for supposing such a thing. It is interesting how quickly you flipflop on these things.
I think we have a miscommunication here, you seem to have missed a concept.U never said God was unreal. He can create the universe and not be a solid object,
Joe: He created all things
And yet last post you told me he did not create diseases.
indirectly he created the conditions that allow disease to evolve. He also created the conditions that allow us to cope. DON'T MAKE ME SPELL OUT OBVIOUS THINGS, IT;S ANGER MAKING
Again, I must point out how you flipflop as the mood suits you. Perhaps if you had these things straight in your mind, your arguments would be more coherent.
it appears that way because you are not well versed in aspects of theology. I have not flop flopped at all. my pomposity is consistent, you don;t understand it
Joe: The Bible, living prophets,law on the heart
The living prophets and the law on the heart are both mankind. Both are man saying what is right and what is wrong.
those are instruments of God. God uses man as an instrument,man by his own devices would still be in caves,
the Bible is not inerrant,it is apart of the evolutionary process through which humanity is perfected. it has backward spots, There;s an old testament and new, the old isout of date since Jesus updated it.
So how can you pretend to get your morality from there?
by using Jesus as the ground
Joe: The Bible, living prophets,law on the heart
Are all Christians agreed on moral issues? Of course not! Issues like homosexuality and abortion are hotly debated. How can that be if Christians get their moral position from God?
we are all at different places in our walk with God
Joe: That's a fair question I think the answer will involve shades of gray abouit the term:"Judge." Recognizing God's goodness is not judgement,except in the loosest sense of the term
How can we determine whether or not God is good without judging him in the clear and usual meaning of the word?
You can either blindly accept an individual is good, or you can look at the evidence and make a judgment.
Joe: We don't need to grapple with that to understand that the conceit of God involves source of the good as definition.
In your definition perhaps. Zeus and Apollo are not considered the source of good. If you want to define God in that way, then it is incumbent on you to show that a god who is the source of good exists, rather than just any god. All your posts on mystical experiences and miracles are not going to cut; at best all they can show is there is some force or power; they cannot show that that force or power is the source of good, so cannot show God exists, as per your definition.
the moral arguments for God;s existence covers that base
Joe: what would easily prevent involve? ...
Performing a tiny miracle each time a kid gets cancer to cure it before anyone knows anything about it. Trivial for an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
If no one knows about it how do you know it doesn't happen?
That is just an assertion Why would healing cancer reduce autonomy?
Joe: That is not the implication of my position ,you are assuming said it's good I didn't, i merely said it's the way it is.
It very much is the implication of your position, you just do not want it to be.
If you are right, then:
It is the way it is because God chooses for it to be that way
God is perfectly good
Therefore it is good that it is the way it is
Joe: It doesn't work in reverse being autonomous means we don't have access to miracles but that does not mean that if we say we are not autonomous we get miracles, the dye is cast. curing kids of cancer does not make us less autonomous.
Why do we not get access to miracles at all?
Why is it an all-or-nothing deal? Is God not able to prevent cancer without also controlling our lives entirely? Why?
Are you aware that there are miracles in the Bible? How was God able to do them without us all losing our autonomy?
Joe: No those who see through that illusion know better,
Or they are themselves deluded. How do we decide which it is?
Personally, I would use judgment. Apparently you use faith.
Joe: Yes we are fellow gnats together
Right. So what is important to the gnat is important to us. Which makes it important to us.
Joe: God does not have to subject himself to a moral standard because he is the standard! His character is the standard which creates the good.All he has to do is behimself.
How does that work under deontology? If the standard has no duties or obligations, then what are the implications for those who follow the standard?
You are the one advocating deontological ethics, and yet your response here has no mention of duties or obligations. It looks to me like use deontological ethics when convenient, and promptly drop them when it is not.
Joe: God is not a being he is being itself.
And yet at other times you insist God is the creator. Make your mind up!
Joe: I just answered it.
But only by abandoning the deontological ethics you previously were advocating. Here is your response again:
"how can the parent spank the child and not himself be subject to being spanked? but the parent is not subject to the child. God us off scale.hes not moral he not immoral he is transmoral. but the essence of the good."
How does duty and obligation fit into that? It does not. As usual, you reach for an ad hoc explanation.
Pix: Under the scheme of morality you propose your God is amoral.
Joe: How could God fail the stonkered when he's the standard? You might as well say speed is not fast.
I did not say he failed the standard. I said he was amoral. Under deontological ethics, anything without duties or obligations must be amoral, whether it is God or a jellyfish.
But of course, this is really you advocating deontological ethics on the one hand, and then promptly dropping it when it becomes inconvenient. It is another example of an ad hoc explanation.
Pix
Making God suspiciously similar to no god.
Joe: God is not a man he does not have to be forced to be good.since the good is based upon his character he is good He's just that way we have to work at it
God cannot do good under deontological ethics if he has no duties or obligations!
How many times do I have to point this out to you?
Pix: Do please explain how diseases increase autonomy. Do you think we should stop all research on curing diseases? Do you think that when science cures the last disease we will all be robots somehow?
Joe: get the wheels turning. think now,disease is a consequence of the natural world without God's direct intervention. If you have a natural world you are prey to nature,nature includes disease as part of evolution. How many times must I explain this?
How many times will it take until your explanation as to how diseases increase autonomy actually mentions autonomy?
Now I ask again: Do please explain how diseases increase autonomy.
Pix: Show how diseases give as autonomy.
Joe: You are being dense. It makes a good deal of sense you refuse to accept that because you fear the obvious implications
And again you duck the issue.
Pix
Agreed, more-or-less. No God required. Jesus was just a man, and we have been moving progressively towards the ideal.
Joe: No it doesn't. Look at the abolitionists who actually fought slavery they justly did it because their faith led them too
The abolitionists fought against slavers who also used the bible to support their position. As well they might, as the Bible is quite clear that slaves can be bought, kept for life and treated as property - and only Hebrew slaves were not to be treated ruthlessly.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Joe: largely because of Christianity
We agree it was not God then...
Pix: In what sense is God the source?
Joe: He created all things
Pix: So you consider good to be analogous to a substance now, i.e., a member of the set of "things" God created, just one post after scoff at me for supposing such a thing. It is interesting how quickly you flipflop on these things.
Joe: I think we have a miscommunication here, you seem to have missed a concept.U never said God was unreal. He can create the universe and not be a solid object,
I agree we have a miscommunication...
What did you mean by "He created all things" in response to my question? I understood you to mean that good was a member of the set "all things"; you were saying God created all things, and that includes good.
The implication is that good is a thing; something you contradicted earlier.
Otherwise, how was your response addressing my question?
Joe: indirectly he created the conditions that allow disease to evolve. He also created the conditions that allow us to cope. DON'T MAKE ME SPELL OUT OBVIOUS THINGS, IT;S ANGER MAKING
You are angry because you have have been caught in a contradiction. Previously I said "Then God created - indirectly perhaps - disease." and you responded:
"no"
Now you have been forced to admit that in fact God did indirectly create diseases.
How does God communicate with you what is right or wrong?
Joe: by using Jesus as the ground
What does that actually mean in practical terms? I.e., does Jesus talk directly to you, do you follow the example Jesus made in the gospels or what?
If no one knows about it how do you know it doesn't happen?
Pix
Joe: Christ. WE have been moving progressively closer to the ideal and Jesus shows us the ideal in action in the character of a man,
Agreed, more-or-less. No God required. Jesus was just a man, and we have been moving progressively towards the ideal.
false assumption, Jesus claimed to be God. If there is no God then claiming to be God surely must be insanity. If we assume God Jesus is great,if we assume no God he's a nut case.
Joe: No it doesn't. Look at the abolitionists who actually fought slavery they justly did it because their faith led them too
The abolitionists fought against slavers who also used the bible to support their position. As well they might, as the Bible is quite clear that slaves can be bought, kept for life and treated as property - and only Hebrew slaves were not to be treated ruthlessly.
No it does not say that.It files to condemn a system but it did not create that system nor does it ever say it;s a valid system. That issue stradeles narrow line between cultural cultural mandate and liberation, But to be true to the ideals of the NT one has to come down on the side of abolition.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore. The context of that command was a system already in place and those commands put more humanity into it by regulating it. But Paul lists slave traders among the worst of sinners; so slave trade is sinful. Thus slavery can;t endure long without the slave trade.
Joe: largely because of Christianity
We agree it was not God then...
Christianity is an extension of God
Pix: In what sense is God the source?
Joe: He created all things
Pix: So you consider good to be analogous to a substance now, i.e., a member of the set of "things" God created, just one post after scoff at me for supposing such a thing. It is interesting how quickly you flipflop on these things.
Joe: I think we have a miscommunication here, you seem to have missed a concept.U never said God was unreal. He can create the universe and not be a solid object,
what I should have aside was God's commands. That's a more direct answer to your question; not just that God created the universe but that he cannonaded us to love to help people to be just and so on
I agree we have a miscommunication...
What did you mean by "He created all things" in response to my question? I understood you to mean that good was a member of the set "all things"; you were saying God created all things, and that includes good.
yes bit that's not a complete answer.
concepts are things. It's not a physical thing.
Otherwise, how was your response addressing my question?
It wasn't. see above
Joe: indirectly he created the conditions that allow disease to evolve. He also created the conditions that allow us to cope. DON'T MAKE ME SPELL OUT OBVIOUS THINGS, IT;S ANGER MAKING
You are angry because you have have been caught in a contradiction. Previously I said "Then God created - indirectly perhaps - disease." and you responded:
"no"
I felt like you were trying to attach blame. It's a matter of semantics, God created the possibilities that led to X but doesn't not make him guilty as we are of violating his own moral code those conditions are necessary to other things as well.
Now you have been forced to admit that in fact God did indirectly create diseases.
You are trying to use the implication of blame to leverage out the existence of God as a loving caring God. WE can't have that, that is garbage.
How does God communicate with you what is right or wrong?
Joe: by using Jesus as the ground
What does that actually mean in practical terms? I.e., does Jesus talk directly to you, do you follow the example Jesus made in the gospels or what?
Jesus did communicate some direct teachings echoed in the Gospels but mostly by example.
If no one knows about it how do you know it doesn't happen?
You didn't answer that one
He could still be perfectly moral (however, almost certainly he never claimed to be God; that was added to the story some time after the Gospel of Mark).
Joe: No it does not say that.It files to condemn a system but it did not create that system nor does it ever say it;s a valid system. That issue stradeles narrow line between cultural cultural mandate and liberation, But to be true to the ideals of the NT one has to come down on the side of abolition.
It is a book that supposedly gives morality, and it explicitly says slavery is permitted.
Sure you can argue that the NT contradicts that, but then you have a Bible that says both that slavery is permitted AND that slavery is morally wrong. Does the Bible contain such a contradiction?
Joe: That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore. ...
So the morality has changed? Are you rerally going down that road?
Joe: ... The context of that command was a system already in place and those commands put more humanity into it by regulating it.
It does not say that. It just says slavery is permitted. There is nothing there to suggest God disapproves. The commands put humanity in it by regulating how Hebrew slaverys were treated. Gentile slaves, not so much.
Joe: But Paul lists slave traders among the worst of sinners; so slave trade is sinful. Thus slavery can;t endure long without the slave trade.
I assume you refer to 1 Timothy, generally believed to be authored by someone other than Paul.
1 Timothy 1:10for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
I see it lumps slave-traders with liars and gays. Do you think that that is the Biblical position?
Contrast to these verses, the first was written by Paul, telling slaves to be obedient:
Ephesians 6:5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Titus 2:9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
Where are the verses telling slave owners to free their slaves? Even in Philemon, where Paul asks for the freedom of one slave, there is no suggest owning a slave is wrong.
Joe: Christianity is an extension of God
In your opinion.
Joe: what I should have aside was God's commands. That's a more direct answer to your question; not just that God created the universe but that he cannonaded us to love to help people to be just and so on
Okay, so God's commands, such as the prohibition on eating shellfish, are where we get good from.
Except, of course, most Christians ignore many of God's commands. How many keep the Sabbath as God instructed, doing no work from dusk on friday evening until dusk Saturday evening?
No, the reality is that Christians routinely trot out "That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore.", and ignore the comnmands of the OT, despite Jesus specifically saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Pix
Your reply implied a created thing. Not necessarily physical, but something analogous at least.
Pix: Otherwise, how was your response addressing my question?
Joe: It wasn't. see above
No, it was not. I asked a question, and you chose to respond with a comment that you now admit was not addressing the question at all. Why is that?
Joe: You are trying to use the implication of blame to leverage out the existence of God as a loving caring God. WE can't have that, that is garbage.
How can you claim God is all-loving, when he chooses not to prevent cancer? He may not be to blame (and then again, he may be), but his failure to stop cancer shows his moral failings, shows his love of us is no different to the love of an imaginary being.
Joe: If no one knows about it how do you know it doesn't happen?
Because kids are still getting cancer.
Pix
Ironic that you say that, given what you have skipped...
A big part of the discussion revolves around deontological ethics; I see you have just ignored that. Have you realised your position is untenable?
Under deontological ethics, good is fulfilling your duties and obligations
God has no duties or obligations
Therefore, under deontological ethics God cannot do good
A big part of the discussion is whether God curing all diseases would prevent or decrease autonomy; I see you have just ignored that. Have you realised your position is untenable?
Pix
Joe: false assumption, Jesus claimed to be God. If there is no God then claiming to be God surely must be insanity. If we assume God Jesus is great,if we assume no God he's a nut case.
He could still be perfectly moral (however, almost certainly he never claimed to be God; that was added to the story some time after the Gospel of Mark).
You have basis for denying that Jesus claimed to be God. He did, The story falla\s apart without that.
Joe: No it does not say that.It files to condemn a system but it did not create that system nor does it ever say it;s a valid system. That issue stradeles narrow line between cultural mandate and liberation. But to be true to the ideals of the NT one has to come down on the side of abolition.
It is a book that supposedly gives morality, and it explicitly says slavery is permitted.
No it does not. How can you have slavery without slave trade? Paul says that is a sin.
Sure you can argue that the NT contradicts that, but then you have a Bible that says both that slavery is permitted AND that slavery is morally wrong. Does the Bible contain such a contradiction?
No passage ever says "slavery is permitted" and the context of all OT is ancient Isreal not modern democracy.
So the morality has changed? Are you really going down that road?
are you really going to pretend that you don't dig calculi relativity? modern hip atheist does not get cultural relativity?
Joe: ... The context of that command was a system already in place and those commands put more humanity into it by regulating it.
It does not say that. It just says slavery is permitted.
Joe: But Paul lists slave traders among the worst of sinners; so slave trade is sinful. Thus slavery can;t endure long without the slave trade.
I assume you refer to 1 Timothy, generally believed to be authored by someone other than Paul.
Unimportant , they put the book in the canon. LK so Psuedo Paul says it rahter than real Paul its still there.
1 Timothy 1:10for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
I see it lumps slave-traders with liars and gays. Do you think that that is the Biblical position?
that reference to homosexuals would have applied to man boy forced sex.They had no concept of "gay."
Contrast to these verses, the first was written by Paul, telling slaves to be obedient:
Ephesians 6:5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Titus 2:9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
Where are the verses telling slave owners to free their slaves? Even in Philemon, where Paul asks for the freedom of one slave, there is no suggest owning a slave is wrong.
Paul misses the boat on civil rights action but show me anyone else in that era who had a better record? the only people who did better dead. Paul was trying to get Christianity going He wasn;t looking to overthrow Rome. But the source that says slave trade is a sin is still a Pauline source. This is not just a little throw away line that doesn't matter. So the Pauline circle opossed slavery.
Joe: Christianity is an extension of God
In your opinion.
not an extension but in service to God.
Okay, so God's commands, such as the prohibition on eating shellfish, are where we get good from.
You know next to nothing about moral philosophy or the Bible.
Except, of course, most Christians ignore many of God's commands. How many keep the Sabbath as God instructed, doing no work from dusk on friday evening until dusk Saturday evening?
Mosaic law was canceled by Christ's death on the cross.There are other injunctions in OT such as do not kill do not steal. and yes Christians fail all the time, We need Christ we are merely human,
No, the reality is that Christians routinely trot out "That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore.", and ignore the comnmands of the OT, despite Jesus specifically saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Like the abolitionists? The early perversers of evolution supported slavery the abolitionists were Christians,
where? give me chapter and verse. You need to learn the concept of cultural context,see this article on OT slavery: link
There is nothing there to suggest God disapproves. The commands put humanity in it by regulating how Hebrew slaverys were treated. Gentile slaves, not so much.
you need to learn the function of the OT. we don;t live by it;s not there to show us anything other than Jesus as Messiah.Paul says sleeve traders are the worst sinners,it follow then slavery is a sin,
Joe: concepts are things. It's not a physical thing.
Your reply implied a created thing. Not necessarily physical, but something analogous at least.
I don't think so,i was really thinking of just any clear concept is a thing.
Pix: Otherwise, how was your response addressing my question?
Joe: It wasn't. see above
No, it was not. I asked a question, and you chose to respond with a comment that you now admit was not addressing the question at all. Why is that?
I am sure that I had a meaningful comment at the time but Ive lost track however I told you what I meant,
Joe: You are trying to use the implication of blame to leverage out the existence of God as a loving caring God. WE can't have that, that is garbage.
How can you claim God is all-loving, when he chooses not to prevent cancer? He may not be to blame (and then again, he may be), but his failure to stop cancer shows his moral failings, shows his love of us is no different to the love of an imaginary being.
there's a trade of. the suffering that results from life in physical world is more than off set by the accomplishment of living in a physical world, finding God and coming to know Jesus and going to heaven
Joe: If no one knows about it how do you know it doesn't happen?
Because kids are still getting cancer.
that does not answer my point. I think it's really stupid to blame God for one ill and that used to ought weigh all of life. That's a stupid excuse not seek truth
3/27/2020 09:25:00 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: You didn't answer that one
Ironic that you say that, given what you have skipped...
????
A big part of the discussion revolves around deontological ethics; I see you have just ignored that. Have you realised your position is untenable?
that is nonsense. most geneticists like den ontology and don;t like teleology, the big fad now is realism and and virtue ethics, One could transpose deonoloty into virtue easily,.
Under deontological ethics, good is fulfilling your duties and obligations
God has no duties or obligations
Therefore, under deontological ethics God cannot do good
I've already proven that to be a Bull shit idea but you refuse to listen, read the answers,
A big part of the discussion is whether God curing all diseases would prevent or decrease autonomy; I see you have just ignored that. Have you realized your position is untenable?
autonomy means no SN ep. so no miracles no healing, You wont allow yourself to believe in those anyway.
That is heading into a very different topic. Suffice to say, you believe all that the gospels say, I do not, and it is certainly plausible that Jesus never said he was God.
Joe: No it does not. How can you have slavery without slave trade? Paul says that is a sin.
No, Paul did not. A later author posing as Paul said slave traders were bad, but not that owning slaves was bad. If owning slaves is wrong, why does the Bible not just state that, like it makes clear that eating shellfish is wrong?
Joe: No passage ever says "slavery is permitted" ...
Yes it does! It is quite clear:
Lev 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
You can buy slaves, and as long as they are not Hebrews you can keep them for life, consider them as property and treat them ruthlessly.
Joe: ...and the context of all OT is ancient Isreal not modern democracy.
Are you saying God has changed his mind?
Joe: are you really going to pretend that you don't dig calculi relativity? modern hip atheist does not get cultural relativity?
What exactly is your point? Are you saying you think slavery is moral back in the OT? Or that God thought it was? Or are you telling me I am supposed to think it was?
Joe: Unimportant , they put the book in the canon. LK so Psuedo Paul says it rahter than real Paul its still there.
But it still only says slave traders, not slave owners. There is NOTHING in the Bible that states owning a slave is wrong, and there certainly is something saying it is permitted.
Joe: that reference to homosexuals would have applied to man boy forced sex.They had no concept of "gay."
And I think it likely the reference to slave traders is equally specific to a certain type of slave trader.
Joe: Paul misses the boat on civil rights action but show me anyone else in that era who had a better record? the only people who did better dead. Paul was trying to get Christianity going He wasn;t looking to overthrow Rome. But the source that says slave trade is a sin is still a Pauline source. This is not just a little throw away line that doesn't matter. So the Pauline circle opossed slavery.
The whole Bible misses the boat on civil rights! No where does it state that slavery is wrong.
Sure, no one at that time did, but that misses the point. You are claiming the Bible is how God communicates morality to us. God's great moral instruction to us fails to state that slavery is wrong.
Either we have to conclude slavery is acceptable or you are wrong in your belief that the Bible is morality from a perfectly good being.
Pix
Joe: You know next to nothing about moral philosophy or the Bible.
I know the Bible is very clear that God thinks eating shellfish is an abomination.
Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
I also know that Jesus said he did not change any of the laws of the OT.
I also know that Christians have decided to twist the bible to suit their lifestyle, and decided that they do not need to keep all those inconvenient laws.
That is fine; however, when you are arguing that the Bible is where God lays out what is morally good and what is morally bad, the fact that Christians ignore most of it shows that not even they really believe that. It is just lip-service. You SAY the Bible is your source of morality, but we both know Christianity picks and chooses the morality it wants from it.
Joe: Mosaic law was canceled by Christ's death on the cross.There are other injunctions in OT such as do not kill do not steal. and yes Christians fail all the time, We need Christ we are merely human,
So Christians have managed to convince themselves. Jesus was quite clear that he did not change the laws at all.
Pix: No, the reality is that Christians routinely trot out "That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore.", and ignore the comnmands of the OT, despite Jesus specifically saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Joe: Like the abolitionists? ...
Presumably the abolitionists did indeed say the laws of the OT do not apply anymore, ignoring what Jesus actually said. What is your point?
Joe: ... The early perversers of evolution supported slavery the abolitionists were Christians,
Darwin was certainly anti-slavery.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16503-hatred-of-slavery-drove-darwin-to-emancipate-all-life/
Pix: No, the reality is that Christians routinely trot out "That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore.", and ignore the comnmands of the OT, despite Jesus specifically saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Joe: where? give me chapter and verse.
Really? You cannot find it from the quote?
Matthew 5:17.
Pix
That article trots out the usual Christian excuses. We have already done the "That's OT we don't live under the OT anymore" one.
The other one we regularly see is that slavery was all nice and jolly back then. It was not so bad for Hebrew slaves in Israel and Judah, and the web page is careful to quote the protections in place for Hebrew slaves. As the web page says:
"Slaves had protection from bodily harm (law of lex talionis: Exodus 21:24-27), access to freedom (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), right to life (Exodus 21:20), got days off (Deuteronomy 5:14-15), holidays off (Deuteronomy 12:12, Deuteronomy 16:10-12, and Deuteronomy 16:13-14), and were commanded to not be mistreated (Leviticus 25:43 and Exodus 22:21)."
Christianity is, to be frank, promoting a lie when it says this. For gentile slaves it was very different, and it was indeed much like the slavery black people experienced in the US. Here are the verses from Leviticus again:
Lev 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Gentile slaves were regarded as property, and could be passed as an inheritence.
Gentile slaves were slaves for life
Gentile slaves could be treated ruthlessly.
Contrary to what that web pages says: Gentile slaves were NOT protected from bodily harm (except the most extreme; losing a limb or eye); they did NOT have access to freedom, they did NOT get days off, they did NOT get holidays off, they was NO command that they were not to be mistreated.
It is disturbing the web page actually cites Leviticus 25:43 with regards to a command they were not to be mistreated, given it is clear this only applies to Hebrew slaves. That tells me they KNOW the article is misleading, and they are confidently the bulk of those reading the page will not bother to actually read the Bible quotes. They were clearly spot-on with you.
Pix
I think we have no established that you consider the laws of the OT to be optional; you can pick and choose the ones you want, and just ignore the rest. This completely destroys your claim that the Bible is where God gives us our morality.
Joe: there's a trade of. the suffering that results from life in physical world is more than off set by the accomplishment of living in a physical world, finding God and coming to know Jesus and going to heaven
And therefore God choses not to stop cancers? Do explain this supposed trade-off. Are you saying that dying of cancer is, overall, a good thing?
If yes, then we should stop trying to find a cure for it, right?
If no, then why does God not stop it?
Joe: that does not answer my point. I think it's really stupid to blame God for one ill and that used to ought weigh all of life. That's a stupid excuse not seek truth
Maybe I do not get your point. I thought you were asking how I know God does not cure cancer. The fact that kids still get cancer is proof he does not cure all cancers.
The point here is that if God exists, and is all-loving and all-powerful, then it necessarily follows that he would want to cure every cancer and would be capable of doing so, and it necessarily follows from that that there is no cancer in the world.
However, we know there is cancer. Therefore the initial premise must be false; there is no God who is all-loving and all-powerful.
Joe: that is nonsense. most geneticists like den ontology and don;t like teleology, the big fad now is realism and and virtue ethics, One could transpose deonoloty into virtue easily,.
Great. So let us discuss how good God is under deontology. He has no duties or obligation. How can he do anything good, then?
Joe: autonomy means no SN ep. so no miracles no healing, You wont allow yourself to believe in those anyway.
Why does autonomy means no SN? I can see how some miracles would prevent autonomy, but others would promote it, by giving a person more choices. Do please explain.
More specifically:
1. Explain how curing a kid of cancer stops the kid having autonomy. To my mind, a kid free to go out and play or whatever has MORE autonomy than one dying in a hospital bed.
2. Explain how Jesus' resurrection stopped us acting with autonomy. That was supernatural, right? If you are right that "autonomy means no SN ep. so no miracles no healing" then that miracle stopped everyone being autonomous.
Pix
Lev 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
You can buy slaves, and as long as they are not Hebrews you can keep them for life, consider them as property and treat them ruthlessly.
you are just repeating this I've already answered, you are not ansering my arguents
1. Explain how curing a kid of cancer stops the kid having autonomy. To my mind, a kid free to go out and play or whatever has MORE autonomy than one dying in a hospital bed.
autonomy means Independence from God. If you are independent God doesn't tell you what to do but he also doesn't help you.if accept help from God you are not automatism anymore,
2. Explain how Jesus' resurrection stopped us acting with autonomy. That was supernatural, right? If you are right that "autonomy means no SN ep. so no miracles no healing" then that miracle stopped everyone being autonomous.
It didn;t we can still act with autonomy but should we? why be autonomous? wny not havea relationship with God?